The following is a compilation of arguments against the infrastructure funding plan proposed by Bitcoin ABC.
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've previously explained how a developer might arrive at a #proIFP stance. Here's what I conceive as strongest arguments against it.
Introducing a Single Point of Failure
Achieving Bitcoin's re-centralization back to a single lead implementation (after BitcoinXT had achieved majority vote, after Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited and BitcoinS2x) has previously led us down the wrong road. Even if it wouldn't have been for hostile intents initially, it definitely simplified the final hostile takeover.
Introducing a single point of failure either in development team or in funding address is a bad idea despite the relief it brings to governance.
Funding is not the Issue at Heart, it's Power
More than 13 kBCH (totaling roughly 4 M$) have been raised over the course of the IFP debate [1,2]. While Bitcoin ABC's flipstarter and their own funding campaign have not been completely filled, both together did raise about 8 kBCH. This is sufficient to start a professional software development team and continue a valuable discussion with the other implementation teams and stakeholders. Very likely it is this discussion which turned out too difficult to continue mutually.
That hints at the actual purpose of the upcoming split rather being leadership, i.e. governance, than the urgency for funding.
Diminishing Bitcoin Cash Hashrate
Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin's last hope. It shouldn't be put on the line lightly. It is currently barely surviving in terms of hash rate. While certain Bitcoin-Core chain miners have a stake in Bitcoin Cash's survival the risk of a 51%-attack persists. It would be a devastating PR event for Bitcoin Cash's security and value proposition.
Both resulting chains of the upcoming split will most likely stand even weaker than we do now united. As long as we don't find consensus on a new way of funding infrastructure development other than voluntarily, we simply cannot afford a change. While people claim this were a deadlock and energy is wasted on discussions, I highly disagree. This issue deserves even more thought given the stakes.
Wrecking Credible Neutrality
As we have already realized the upcoming split is about governance of Bitcoin Cash. We should ensure that which ever governance mechanism is chosen in the long run is credibly neutral.
Any rush in this is unjustified.@BigBlockIfTrue and @ZakMcRofl have pointed to quite some flaws in the current draft of the fund's governance model:
Meme Warfaring
A meme competition by @micropresident paved the way for the debate to personal attacks and towards hostility [3]. While arguments are made the campaign itself were a mere response to hostility, I would yet have to see the particular post by the agent provocateur.
The degree to which Amaury Séchet and prominent advocates of the current IFP engage in the meme warfaring doesn't shed an appealing light on the future governance style of the IFP.
Diminishing Adoption, Diminishing Emergence
Money is a social construct. The more people join a particular currency the more it reduces friction, the more valuable it becomes. This is nowhere more true than in the cryptocurrency space where money is programmable: The more people join a particular currency the higher the likelyhood of emergence.
The Ethereum community is an excellent example for that. Inventive projects mutually enrich each other as they become increasingly interoperable. In Bitcoin Cash we just start to see emergence gain traction. The idea of @TobiasRuck's Be.Cash for example was only born from lucky coincidences (a student's wifi problems at the other end of the world) which were conceivable only because Bitcoin Cash had grown sufficiently large. It would be mean a setback in adoption and emergence in a critical moment.
Redefining who ownes new coinbases
In his article "The Best of Intentions: The Dev Tax Is Intended to Benefit Investors But Will Corrupt Us Instead" @PeterRizun explains how the change of the incentive structures of Bitcoin as layed out out in a previous IFP proposal is harmful on several levels. The main points remain:
It introduces trust in an otherwise trustless system.
It redefines ownership of the coinbase with legal implications.
It introduces fiscal policy in Bitcoin.
Once and for all
If successful the current IFP will give a considerable amount of money, i.e. power, to Bitcoin ABC. It is hard to imagine that any other node-implementation team could ever come close to challenge Bitcoin ABC's leadership claim ever (with considerably less funding than their competitor).
Based on historical evidence power tends to corrupt. Once implemented regulations are hard to ever shake off again.
Edits:
2020-09-09: Added a table of content, added section 'Redefining who ownes new coinbases', add last sentence to section 'Diminishing Adoption, Diminishing Emergence'
[1] https://fund.bitcoinabc.org/
[2] https://read.cash/@bomtom1/understanding-amaury-4c17f6d5#comment-a30248ff
[3] https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/i0bkfx/readcash_founder_threatens_ban_permanent_fund/
The fact that ABC can do this is evidence that it already existed.
No, funding is the root of hte issue.
Nothing to do with the conversation
It doesn't wreck it, but it does move it up to the cryptocurrency market level.
This is totally irrelevant to the debate.
Another orthogonal point.
Bitcoin cannot be owned. New Coinbases were never "owned." The definition of the mining reward has changed slightly.
There are thousands of cryptocurrencies. They're free to do their own thing. ABC launched Bitcoin Cash.