My own opinion is flexibility is most important under conditions of uncertainty. You need the ability to make quick changes as you learn about the environment.
Bitshares is an experiment, whether it's 1.0 or 2.0. There have been several controversial decisions such as the merger, or even AGS. The simple fact is that Bytemaster doesn't owe us anything and Cryptonomex is their company. The Brownie Points apply to what Bytemaster and their team are doing.
But why complain about it? If you think there should be new rules, issue a token, and start a new game. There is no reason to believe only one game can be played at a time and that we can't play multiple games in parallel. We also don't want to be like Bitcoin where we can't change the rules and become obsolete.
My suggestion, transition into a gift economy. Let Bytemaster be the leader who makes the first move with Brownie Points, but there is no rule which says there can only be Brownie Points, or that developers can only sharedrop on Brownie Points exclusively. This means you can get Bytemaster's development support by sharedropping on his people, but you can also sharedrop on your own people or on any tokens you want.
If Bytemaster is the man who brought the Identabit deal together, then on the basis of him setting the deal up he has a lot of influence over it and can have Brownie Points. There are plenty of other deals which can be set up in the future and if you set a deal up you can have the sharedrop in whatever pattern you think would be best.
Compared to how the Bitcoin community is, I don't see what there is to complain about. Most people here probably will make money regardless of Brownie Points.