Just to play devil's advocate here... Does an agency have more responsibility to help someone maintain some sort of subterfuge or to be more transparent about the people/businesses that provide artwork to their company?

Where is the "subterfuge" here? There are plenty of valid reasons why people choose to protect their anonymity on the Internet.
DT asked for contributors' feedback and it was overwhelmingly negative. I, for one, I'm still hoping the company will do the right thing, and decide against revealing everyone's name and location.

There is a thread going there " one month without a sale"  check it out please. The only people shouting bme or good sales are the lower level royalty members. Embarrassing actually since they must take us for complete fools.

I couldn't find the thread, but that hasn't been my case. My sales over the past couple of months have been bad, but not that bad. I've had sales every week, but almost all of them are 42-cent subscriptions and it's not like they are adding up quickly.

But the change in the search engine must benefit some contributors, so I wouldn't be surprised if people who've been at DT a long time have seen a spike in their sales.

I commented on another thread that my sales have plummeted in the past couple of months, as seems to be the case for many other contributors (just go to the DT forums to see), so I guess that's what OP calls "DT bashing." For the record, I think in theory, DT is a great agency.

If you don't value your work, nobody else will, and that's the reason why, a couple of years ago, when I decided to give microstock a shot, I signed up as an exclusive with DT: to my knowledge, no other agency pays its contributors 60 percent, which seemed to me more than fair. (Getting paid 20 percent so that a billionaire can buy himself another helicopter doesn't.) That says to me that DT is an agency that values and respects its contributors, which made me want to work with them. My opinion of DT in that respect hasn't changed.

Unfortunately, for some reason, sales on DT are just low and 60 percent of almost nothing is still almost nothing. And the latest change that DT made benefits older photos, which harms relatively new contributors such as me.

As I said, I think in theory DT is a great agency for exclusive contributors. The problem is that you cannot pay your bills in theory (I've tried). I do find it unfortunate that an agency that treats exclusive contributors as well as DT does is not more successful. I wish everybody in microstock would contribute exclusively to DT so that it would become the leading agency and all of us would get paid really well but, sadly, that's not happening.

I'm exclusive with DT and my sales have fallen to about a third of what they used to be until a couple of months ago. At first I thought it was because of summer, although last year I didn't see a seasonal decline. Only recently did I realize that the drop coincided with a little change DT made to its search engine: the default buyers now see when they search for images is "Best selling" instead of "Most relevant." I think that benefits mostly old images, which have had time to sell a lot, and I've only been a DT member for a couple of years.

I'm thinking of not only dropping exclusivity, but leaving DT altogether. I really don't have time to upload to many sites, so I'm considering trying to become exclusive at iStock, but I've been doing research and iStockers don't exactly seem like happy campers either, and the announcement that you'll have to ask permission to delete your photos from iStock seems shady as hell... On the other hand, sales have to be better than at DT. I'm just not sure if it's worth the hassle of disabling my 3,000 images at DT (which of course you have to do one by one  ) and starting all over at iStock.

Sigh.