I feel you are being very impatient and rash here, but I also agree with a number of your points, and I think you'll find most of the community does too. I'll try to address some of your points:
I don't make this claim because I wasn't elected, I make this claim because there are a 10 delegates (1 being a test), way too many init* delegates taking up the 101 slots. Less than 778 USD a day is being invested into the human capital of this institution, which is more on the level of a small business. It also appears no one wants to acknowledge that they will have a hard time finding contracters when the system requires them to pay 885 USD (not counting the many hours the campaigning will take) for a chance to run, which most likely given the statistics will fail.
I'm not sure where you're getting this information, but it's not quite correct. There are currently 12 100% delegates (none of which are tests, you may be referring to the one run by the user "testz"?). There are two more 100% delegates that are quite close to being voted in, and they've been around for a while now. There's also 1 delegate at 10%, and several new 100% delegates that will get voted in over the next few weeks probably.
What you fail to take into account is that this system is still very new (about a month and a half), and most people are still trying to get accustomed to it. Contrary to what you claim, there are more 100% delegates that have successfully been elected than not, and those who are outside for now will get there eventually. There is a lot of inertia to voting so it takes a long time for people to get their votes out, but eventually they will if your proposition is interesting.
There are definitely too many init's and I don't think you'll find anyone here who disagrees with that, unfortunately some big stakeholders are keeping them elected.
Instead the concerns almost entirely revolved around if we could hold the block rewards essentially indefinitely or focused on limiting their short term loses from inflation on their current holdings or being critical of other communities. The atmosphere here is generally unprofessional overall and absolutely falls short of the marketing slogan "the future of banking".
I think one user asked you to hold the earnings? I certainly don't agree with that and I'm sure lots of others feel the same. There's also a quite irrational fear of inflation among many members of this community, but the change that allowed inflation to happen is also quite recent which may be why. I see you got some negative reaction to your support of Nubits, that's explained by the fact that a lot of people here consider it a a dangerous Ponzi scheme, but you also got comments saying they don't care if you support Nubits.
You may not realize this but you also got the support of several very influential community members like Xeroc and Toast, and if you'd just remained patient you would probably have gotten elected.
We will be stepping back as we do not have additional time to invest continually addressing this community repeatedly on the same points, but we will keep an eye on the project. Though we suspect some enterprising individuals will likely fork the codebase, give more attention to fair distirubution and come up with a more meaningful mission statement than make short term profit for early adopters and really take full advantage concept of DPOS.
I'd love for you to elaborate on your complaints about the distribution. Bitshares has a much fairer distribution than just about any crypto currency out there, including Bitcoin, so I'm a little surprised by this. Yes, the voting power of Bytemaster is currently quite important, but it is due to voter apathy more than poor distribution. Having the core developer control less than 8-9% of a coin is quite good in my opinion, especially considering his share is not the result of a premine or insta-mine or early-mine as is the case with so many coins.