Let's make things clear about the fund proposal

"But here we are, thinking about allowing miners to print coins that go to their fund."

This is inaccurate.

The block reward remains exactly the same under the proposal, the only difference is that 12.5% of it goes to a different address.

Repeating and spelling it out, very slowly: It is not additional 12.5% over the 12.5 BCH block reward, it is 12.5% of the 12.5 BCH reward. The sum of coins that go towards infrastructure development and remaining coinbase reward will always add up to 12.5 BCH. Or, after the halving, to 6.25 BCH.

I'm changing my mind on this whole issue. I used to think having part of block reward / inflation go to development is good way to get sustainable funding that avoids the tragedy of the commons problem that voluntary donations business model has, where only a few donate and the rest free rides, hence why I liked Dash and Zcash.

But, piece of inflation paying for everything also causes voluntary donations in money, development and marketing, to collapse as now everybody expects to get payed. It also centralizes development and marketing as now everybody becomes dependent on this one funding stream. It also causes politics to emerge as now you have to sell yourself well in order to get funding from that stream. Typically such foundation with guaranteed income stream, ends up being overtaken by parasites who pay themselves well and care little for the mission as true entrepreneurs that care are not attracted to such employee positions.

Despite the loud complaining by Amaury Sechet about lack of funding for development, the amount of development done on BCH is actually very impressive. You currently have several independent clients/implementations, large and small ones, last 6 months we got CashFusion, SLP tokens, and BCH has by far highest amount of idealist promoting and spending it. True, financial donations are lacking but have not been cultivated yet also.

There was only 1 fundraiser to my knowledge where one could donate easily to different teams, that was actually quite successful raising an impressive 800 BCH or so in 2 months, however this success was not recognized as Amaury was causing trouble yet again complaining some parties should not have been on the list, KYC/AML regulations were not complied to (yet he did not follow up when I proposed to sign a paper as large donator), and didn't even thank the community for the 400 BCH his team got, nor did his partner David Allan from the Development Foundation who received 200 BCH or so.

The biggest problem for me with this 'proposal' is that some miners force all other miners, as well as all coinholders, to pay for something they deem good, via inflation. This is a slippery slope that will likely lead to many other costs they deem necessary, by further reducing security or when no more possible, increasing inflation, creating a bigger and bigger group of parasites leeching from the system. This will chase away the goodwill and enthusiasm so many have for BCH and will likely make it irrelevant over time.

I think best is to reject this proposal in full and start to embrace the donation business model more by launching not a temporary but permanent fundraise where builders (devs, marketeers, spokespeople) can make their case why they would like more donations, and donators can build a reputation based on their generosity.

@MarkDeMesel Thanks dude!

I think a multi-sig wallets with miners who mined the blocks with control of the fund or a smart contract would be better than a private company?