You present a pretty good idea, we had assumed the Twitter protocol was enough, but something more primitive and tangible to get behind like a charity fund is valuable - weve opened up a vote on this topic!
To be honest, I wasn't even thinking about the Twitter protocol when I made my post about a charity fund. Yes, if done right, I do believe the Twitter protocol will do more for the coin than any charity fund.
On that topic, I just wanted to clarify a small (but very important) detail on how the Twitter protocol will function. Will a user need to spend MiloCoin to send a tweet through the Twitter protocol (coins spent on messages can be automatically sent to a burn address or redistributed to nodes participating in protocol)? I certainly hope so for a few reasons.
It will limit spam tweets.
It will provide the coin with real world utility and a steady stream of buyers for anyone wishing to use the protocol.
Finally, and most importantly, Milo and Gavin will be much more willing to accept their coins and promote the coin if there is a reason for them holding the coins beyond making them richer. When investors look at the coin and ask, "So why were Milo and Gavin just given all these coins!??!" the answer will be, "So they can use the Twitter protocol of course!!". When their fanbase asks, "So why are Milo and Gavin shilling this coin?!?!" the answer will be, "For free speech!!". When it comes to marketing, being able to explain the gifts like this plays out much much better.
If spending the coin is NOT required to use the Twitter protocol, it just looks like Milo and Gavin are being bribed into promoting a memecoin. If spending the coin IS required to use the Twitter protocol, it looks like Milo and Gavin are being gifted coins with real utility that will allow them to spread their message more effectively. Investors in the former scenario will feel like they are being duped into making two rich men even richer, while investors in the latter scenario will feel like they are supporting free speech.