I could offer my opinions all I want, but there isn't really a process that I'm aware of where my opinion could go from me spouting off to an actual change in the way the Devcoin project works. All I can think of right now is that if someone has a concern about how the payment system is structured, he should express that concern to UnthinkingBit, because so far, he's the only one I know of (and please inform me of other genuine decision makers that I may be missing) who has the authority to make any sort of change to any aspect of the Devcoin project.
With that said, my opinion is that UnthinkingBit should proceed with what is truly going to be most beneficial to the Devcoin project as a whole, even if that means that in the short term I won't get paid as well as a writer. Once such a decision is made, then I reevaluate my contribution and see if I continue as a writer. If I choose not to, it's no hard feelings or anything, just moving on.
I can't be any more specific than that because of the gap in my technical knowledge which I mentioned before.
As for my opinion on the proportion of payment writers get, it really depends on what the actual goal of the Devtome is. If the point is to get Devcoins into as many hands as possible, as in bring them into wider circulation, then I think that system is brilliant. There's a relatively easy, straightforward way for fairly intelligent but otherwise ordinary people to get lots of Devcoins in their wallets. The fact that it favors good writers (and the type of writers who most benefit are those who write consistently and prolifically), means that the writers will likely write about Devcoins not just on the Devtome but wherever else they might be writing. Pair a good writer with a good marketer and you will get the word out. If the goal is to develop all these cool techie things, then obviously you'd want to make it a sweet deal for the programmers and developers of those things.
Come to think of it, the bounty issue could be solved very easily in any number of ways, one of them being that for certain techie projects that are considered paramount (such as fixing the code to keep DVC on mcxNOW, assuming that will satisfy RS), the bounty isn't a certain number of shares but a percentage of the total pool, or just a plain amount, for example, 10% of generated shares or 18,000,000 DVC, sort of a flip side of limiting the Devtome pool to a certain percentage.
One thing that I would propose is that for those who are interested, one or more proven writers can be "assigned" to each techie project. I'm not the first to notice that often programmers suffer from an inability to communicate the significance of what they are doing to average nontechnical people such as myself. Put a writer on that project and give that writer access to the programmers for interviewing, and set up some way that they both benefit from the ensuing article. Make it worth the programmer's while because I'm sure it will try his patience to have to break it down into baby steps for the writer (probably more than once!), and make it worth the writer's while for having to take the extra step of interviewing the programmer and then putting all the information into a nice engaging story. There are probably a number of approaches that can be taken for compensation.
I think that one of the issues going on is a huge disconnect between the writers who are nontechnical and just coming on board and the programmers who have been doing cool stuff for a while. The word about the importance of what the programmers are doing is not getting out because the programmers aren't describing it in plain English. The writers don't write about these projects because they don't know the first thing about them. Put the two together and you will have some decent promotional material about each project which can then be widely disseminated to the benefit of writer, programmer, and project.
It's really a matter of prioritizing and then incentivizing what is determined to be the priority. I'm totally cool with bouncing around ideas like this. I just don't think it's fair to take out one's frustrations with not liking the current system onto the people who are taking advantage of it. It's not a crime to make the most of a situation that benefits you, even if that system is for the time being majorly rigged in your favor. I will definitely continue to make the most of the current system and yes I will be the first to say it's been my lucky break. But I'm not particularly attached to it going on like this forever, and if/when it changes I'll either adapt or move on, and I'll be better off economically for it as long as I can steer clear of the scams.
Although I personally do tend towards altruism, I believe that an economic system that depends on altruism will not in the long run be sustainable. For it to work in the long run, it has to work just fine when the majority of the participants are for the most part looking out for their own interests. I'm not talking about survival of the fittest or dog eat dog, just people going along trying to better their lives and doing what's best for them while still being generally ethical. The reality is that this is how most people operate, so you want your currency to work for them and still accomplish the overall goals.
Weisoq, I don't think you understand where I'm coming from here/..
I’m not a Devcoin coder, developer or activist either. I first arrived at this site and devtome a couple of months before you did. However we're both able to form intelligent, informed conclusions about the pros/cons of several basic aspects of supply and demand.
Your general points - as I think I’ve made clear I’m not apportioning any blame on you or anyone else in particular, only onto the system. I highlighted some element of a process for you only because it made a point and I was replying to you. That ‘writers’ broadly are being scapegoated is because that is what is indeed to blame - 75% + related shares of dvc go to devtome writers.
I’m annoyed at the general apathy and shrugging by those accruing most monetary benefit from the system, to the cost of everybody else. That mostly seems to be devtome writers - if it was something else I would direct my frustrations elsewhere. You're correct in your implications that I could instead just direct all my grumbling at Unthinkingbit but I guess I hoped all those involved would have an interest in finding a better way forward - and I suspect or at least assumed he may think similarly - if he doesn't then I guess he knows my view by now. I have made a point of not getting personal at all with anybody with regards to writings/particular efforts, although I’ve spent a lot of time on devtome so of course I have views, but that is not the point to me - there's nothing fundamentally wrong with devtome only in how it impacts upon the wider Devcoin project.
You refer to mutuality as if it’s something you’ve considered and concluded upon as balanced - I just don’t see where such benefits exist. What ‘value’ do I add to Devcoin in posting writings on devtome? There’s value is somebody reads it as original, enjoys it, shares it, buys or spreads the word about Devcoin equivalent to that earned from it. Otherwise it’s a one-way trade or a skewed trade.
So what also annoys me is when those benefiting from a skewed incentive structure then pronounce the mutual benefit to the concept of the status-quo, a continuation. For every share that say I earn, that diminishes somebody else’s reward. That’s just the way it works - and that's fine but in my opinion that needs to be accounted for by being able to justify greater relative value. I can't see how/where that's even been considered.
The issue I think you miss is that it’s not really the ‘client’ paying you - it’s me, him, her and everybody else that has, could have or will have Devcoins. You are one of the decsion-makers because you have the ability to offer opinion, act and transact to the benefit or detriment of devcoin. Electing to hide behind the defence of a particular professional artist-client relationship while in full knowledge of the costs to a viable continuity of such a relationship is I think slightly disingenuous, and from what I’ve read and heard of your opinion not in line with your general outlook.
However, regardless of my view it is only my view and not necessarily that of others. Like you I also have to make a decision as to whether or not it's still beneficial to me to continue, so thanks for sticking your head above the parapet and building on the discussion.
I research and proofread all my work... still a bit scary though! 
