The following is a summary of one angle on the current infrastructure funding plan debate. It's compiled to the best of my understanding as I follow along with the debate. Disclaimer: I'm yet another long-time lurker who's passionate about Bitcoin, unassociated with any of the development teams, and doesn't have any clues of what's going on behind the scences. This is my subjective perception of the events and facts.
I'm convinced that all known and relevant actors of our current community act in good faith to promote Bitcoin Cash as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for the world. For the reading time of this article I invite you to assume the same. I'm happy to be part of such a passionate community. In the current infrastructure-funding debate, however, different believes separate us irreconcilably. Those are
a) proper funding for long-term infrastructure development is necessary, and
b) funding for infrastructure development must not come from the coinbase.
As a lurking community member and as a software developer I find myself in the awkward position to consider both statements true . So I cannot wholeheartedly support one side over the other. Here's why.
If you put yourself in the shoes of a professional software developer who would like to become independent of the Bitcoin Core client, who wants to properly maintain such a project and further develop it according to a well defined roadmap, you will quickly see that you need considerable long-term infrastructure development funding (IFP) [1,2] (Please do read/listen to both references). Without such a funding, you cannot fulfill your goal. Software developers understand this and that's why a large portion of members inclined to the IFP are software developers (e.g. @trout, @VinArmani, @TobiasRuck, @cpacia).
The coinbase is the incentive for miners to build blocks. It's the sum of all transaction fees of a mined block plus an decreasing share to initially distribute Bitcoins in the system. A block's miner decides who receives the coinbase (usually the miner itself).
Any development team who by default receives a share of the coinbase which is uncorrelated to a trustlessly verifiable amount of work evolves to a trusted third party of the system: It will never be possible to challenge the resources of this team. Even if the trusted third party is benevolent, this introduces a single point of failure to the system. Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system which intrinsically doesn't and mustn't require a trusted third party.
To my understanding this is why most of the publicly known community members reject any diversion of the coinbase [3,4] in particular given the adversarial attacks Bitcoin Cash is continuously facing from the all-powerful fiat world.
With these points established (necessity for infra funding & majority of the community rejects coinbase diversion), voluntary donations are the natural fit to the problem. Can we achieve this on a voluntary basis? Let's do the math by rule of thumb: 15 decent developers at a salary of 450 BCH at current price for a reasonable first project term of three years totals to 20 kBCH. ABC only asked for 1 kBCH in their fundraiser and couldn't get it filled .
Until proven otherwise at this point the only viable option left is to use a share of the coinbase which could decrease as the token valuation grows. Ideally, this would be understood by the community in order to have the essential discussion on governance of the IFP which necessarily needs to predate any implementation .
If the community doesn't understand this or is unwilling to because their funding is already secured (as maybe with Bitcoin Unlimited's predating BTC donation) and thus no other node team joins in on the IFP, then the governance discussion cannot even be had. The issue is then solved as there's anyhow only one team willing to understand the bitter truth and move forward. How much longer shall Bitcoin Cash wait and let Bitcoin Core lead the way? The answer might be 'until we outperform Bitcoin Core in tx volume and then we'll have enough participating companies with vested interest to invest in infrastructure'. The latter might mean a decade of stasis and there's further arguments against it . I don't want to pretend to know what's right.
As I see it @deadalnix is enforcing a more active approach here in a clever way. Let's state the obvious
Jihan and Haipo potentially control enough hash (on BTC) to settle the hashwar short-term in any direction they want. No signaling needed.
Bitmain controls enough Bitcoin Cash to settle the relative price of the coins post furca long-term in any direction they want.
As a result, the hashwar can only be won long-term by Bitmain or an actor which can keep up with their Bitcoin-Cash stack. This incentivizes other large actors (e.g. Bitcoin Unlimited, @RogerVer) to convert an essential share of their total holdings to Bitcoin Cash prior to the fork. Depending on Bitmain's position in the debate this might mean Bitcoin Cash will either get strong leaders that have put not only a considerable but an essential share of their holdings in Bitcoin Cash or it will get a professional software-development team lead by Bitcoin ABC.
Currently neither BU nor Roger are to an essential degree invested in Bitcoin Cash. That makes sense from the perspective of any investing individual and I don't blame anyone. However, for establishing Bitcoin Cash as the market-leading cryptocurrency it is as huge a problem [7,8] as a missing infrastructure development at the scale of Bitcoin Core. Amaury enforces advancement on at least one of these fronts. It seems this makes some sense from a free-marketeer perspective: On the one hand we believe in the output of the free market, its magic hand which delivers perfect information at minimal friction. Yet on the other hand we're reluctant to provide the input for the output we would like to see by either showing up bold at our degree of investment (essential, not just considerable) or at the infrastructure development front (leading, not just following by backporting core).
 To be a bit more nuanced I'd argue one could actually get around (b) if a well-discussed and communtiy-wide agreed-upon trustless governance model for available funds were at hand prior to any node implementation (https://read.cash/@bomtom1/without-governance-model-the-infrastructure-development-fund-mustnt-come-from-the-coinbase-a583613d).
 Chris Pacia, The 253rd 'Thoughts on developer funding' Article, https://read.cash/@cpacia/the-253rd-thoughts-on-developer-funding-article-87b4d8e2
 Amaury Séchet, Build Bitcoin Cash Culture, BCH Conference 2019, Timestamp 294s, https://youtu.be/uOv0nmOe1_o?t=294
 Roger Ver, Imagine How You Would Feel, https://read.cash/@RogerVer/imagine-how-you-would-feel-3a6b2516
 @georgedonnelly , Amaury Séchet is Forking Bitcoin ABC away from Bitcoin Cash, https://read.cash/@georgedonnelly/amaury-sechet-is-forking-bitcoin-abc-away-from-bitcoin-cash-8734adc1
 https://abc.flipstarter.cash/ - Can someone help me how much was raised at peak?
 Amaury Séchet, Build Bitcoin Cash Culture, BCH Conference 2019, Timestamp 739s, https://youtu.be/uOv0nmOe1_o?t=739
 Amaury Séchet, Build Bitcoin Cash Culture, BCH Conference 2019, Timestamp 1499s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ywIL17ityk&t=1499
 @BigBlockIfTrue, "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt", https://read.cash/@BigBlockIfTrue/fear-uncertainty-and-doubt-ece60d2b