what a terrible way to frame the zcash dev fund. @tyler is comparing protocol-funded, community-driven developments to the USAID, as if it were some kind of charity by the all-mighty US companies. i agree the dev fund needs improvements, but this is the wrong way to advocate for it. pure propaganda fueled by a US-centric mindset and protagonist syndrome. from a protocol perspective, the dev fund is as "USAID" as mining. it's part of ZEC's tokenomics. all very well documented. mining funds network security via protocol emission. the dev fund funds community-driven initiatives. both add value to zcash:native and are needed for zcash to survive and grow. it's important to understand that the plan is to end the dev fund to redirect its share (20% from the whole dev fund or 8% from the ZCG part) of protocol emission to miners. it's also important to understand that tyler and his twin made a huge investment in mining equipment via @cypherpunk a few months ago to become zcash's largest miner, controling aproximately 18% of the network's hashrate and block producing (which means receiving ~18% of the mining share of protocol emissions). moving the dev fund's share to mining directly benefits his enterprise.