I certainly don't mean you when I say the average user has been ignored and maligned. I was referring to a generality that I have read on many an occasion where authors have been blamed for selling and putting downward pressure on the steem price. None of what I am saying is an attack on you for whom I have a great respect for. Those same writings where authors are generalised often seem to consider them almost a nuisance.

I tend not to believe the whole freedom/pumpkin ownership is a mystery but that's an entirely separate issue.

No, witnesses have provided input to the developers to help decide what is included in the proposed release.

I am only going by my take on the below text.

At the request of the Witnesses, we have included code in this release that would add a long term funding mechanism for the SteemDAO/SPS. If this hardfork is accepted by the Witnesses, 10% of overall inflation (pulled from the rewards pool) would be used to fund proposals made through the SteemDAO/SPS.

Is the wording incorrect or ambiguous? Or did Steemit Inc decide off their own bat where the ten percent is coming from? It reads as if the witnesses proposed it. Which is the basis of my original point.

You are of course entitled to disagree and argue against it. But it remains. I do thank you of course for your alternate views on this but in this occasion I am unswayed.