I appreciate your input @smacz and after reading this app went against your conscience I had to read your put incentive model article to try and understand more of your reasoning. This is what I gathered after that exercise:
1) This is a complicated problem with unsolved questions and alternative solutions.
The put incentive model is one solution while n99's model is another.
As better solutions are developed n99 will adjust accordingly. This was confirmed by @dallyshalla statement even as I was righting this post
2) Greed can play a factor in malicious apps being developed
This second point from your article is very true, however, @we_advance and @dallyshalla have developed a strong enough reputation here to relinquish those fears for me anyway.
I support n99 just as I support David and his team not introducing spying software in the protocol even under duress of the state. I support the SAFE Network who pays a bounty to bug fixers who might instead introduce malicious code that goes undetected by David's team for a period of time. I support Project Decorum even though some have argued having @Seneca as the only decision maker is centralized and subject to corruption.
Seneca has built enough of a reputation here to support him and I extend the same courtesy to @we_advance and @dallyshalla who are trying to build an app that is far more generous than anything we have today. To boot it is being built on our beloved SAFE Network. Any app that bring awareness and traffic to SAFE is good in my book, especially an app that brings more bright traffic like the arts vs darknet traffic like we are use to in the cryto wild wild west. Therefore my conscience is clear.
n99because... life is people people.