This post actually makes me a bit angry. What's "ridiculous" is the fact that you think the delegates should pay you anything.

Originally, the delegate system was not supposed to have pools. Instead, voters should vote for delegates who were actively helping the development of the project, such as devs, public speakers, ambassadors and so on. This would further the adoption and therefore ultimately rise the value of the whole system, including the holdings of the voters.

This system was perverted by two things:

The first thing is that a lot of the delegates have so much voting power on their own that they don't need you or anyone to stay active. Why should they share their revenue with you then? I agree that this is a problem, but it is inherent to the system. You could change the system to a split vote system like Ark has, I would be all for it, but that is a bandaid at best.

The second thing is the emergence of pools.
Before pools, potential delegates made long statements about what they were doing to do with the money they earned, funding development, giving out grants, attending conferences as ambassadors and so on. This was completely beat down by the pools, which simply stated "we will share 80% with you" and that was it. Who cares about future development when they can make hard cash now, right?

And this is the current climate DPoS systems exist in. This is not exclusive to Shift, mind you.