During 2020 the Infrastructure Funding Plan has been a hot topic, to say the least, surrounding the Bitcoin Cash network. My initial reaction to the the first IFP announcement was actually quite positive and it just did make some sense to pay for infra structure development and maintenance via the coinbase reward.
I get that ABC wants to run their own show and leave the other full node implementations on another chain but until there is certainty about which of the two forks that remains "Bitcoin Cash (BCH)" throughout the cryptocurrency markets this split is not amicable and will cause a lot of problems. If one of the two sides of the fork gives up the name and implements replay protection the drama would immediately settle, but I don't think that'll happen because the name evidently carries a lot of value.
From my point of view the IFP was discarded by the (loud part of the) majority of the infra structure developers and seeing flipstarter come to life and bootstrap projects such as BCHN and the BCHD SLP integration is quite amazing. I do not think that flipstarter or similar community driven donation models is sustainable beyond these initial rounds of funding so within a year we will probably be back to square one in terms of funding.
So why do I consider the IFP to be a bad idea?
Firstly I think that the drama surrounding Bitcoin Cash will intensify beyond the boiling point if there is a multi million dollar per year stream of money to fight around for everyone that consider themselves infra structure developers. Instead of every project trying to find their own way of putting food on their tables the default direction will be to get a part of the 8% coinbase and the way to do it is either convince the Global Network Council (GNC) of your excellence or trash talk the incumbents and claim that they are ineffective and therefor should direct the funding elsewhere. Oh the drama that will emerge! The details of the GNC has yet to to be announced but I have severe doubts that this organization will not be corrupted and eventually overthrown, resulting in yet another split. Why should miners and holders pay 8% to one team when another team claim to do the same for 7%, 5% or 0.1%? The we-can-do-it-cheaper-and-better-team will of course launch massive campaigns on social media to fire up a split because they are incentivized to do so.
Secondly, and this occurred to me recently, is the premise of centrally secured funding and the ~15 year old echo when I hear proponents of IFP say things along the line of: "Who will pay for the infra". In Sweden circa 2006 a political party was formed and got into the eye of national media. The party was of course the Pirate Party led by the unknown IT guy Rick Falkvinge and although he didn't have any political background or media training some of the arguments brought forward resonated a lot with myself as a student in my young 20s. One question that he was asked on prime time TV often regarding his stance on allowing free copying of, for instance, music was: "How will the artists get paid?". Since a couple of days ago I see a very strong connection to the "Who will pay for the infra structure?" raised by the IFP proponents.
The answer is that this is a problem for the person working on the infra structure, not everyone else. If something needs to be done it'll get done if enough people and or capital depends on it. If the infra is written and maintained by a bunch of amateurs then we need to realize that the project doesn't carry enough value to be professional. Bitcoin Cash did fork off over three years ago and there are people working full time on it still and to my knowledge no-one has starved to death yet. I am fully aware that some of these people have unsustainable funding situations and have lost a significant amount of money, both in personal savings and opportunity costs. I am truly in awe of the sacrifices done by a lot of people to bring this technology where it is today and I hope that you will be rewarded in one way or the other, but forcing a funding model into the protocol is not the way to go. I'm sorry. If the situation is unsustainable then please step aside and if no one fills the gap then the gap is not meant to be filled.
Is Bitcoin Cash doomed to fall into irrelevance with or without the IFP? Perhaps. But I consider the previous and upcoming split and dilutions of the Bitcoin Cash network effect and reputation far more damaging.
Clarification: I am not a miner, significant holder of coins or infra structure developer beyond a few sporadic code contributions to Electron Cash. I do not consider myself to have a strong voice within 'the community' and mostly lurks around BCH related channels to get my information. I am not a stake holder, just some random dude.
