Limited overs cricket is different from 5 days cricket and full member status depends on the later, it directly related to ICC funding. As of now it goes like this.
Full test nations (12) gets a bigger slice of a pie, atm 85%-90% goes to full nation (test playing countries).
Then comes the associate nations (90+), they gets around 10-ish%. No strict restriction here, like domestic setup (age group , women cricket) etc.
I don't have an issue with India getting $230 million per year (38.5% of the ICC revenues). But how can it be justified that Zimbabwe receives $17.64 million every year from the ICC (2.94% of the ICC revenue), while a team like Nepal receives just $200,000 to $250,000 per year? Nepal is lucky, because they receive around $500,000 to $600,000 per year from the ACC. But teams like Namibia and Papua New Guinea are not that lucky. They don't have the luxury of the ACC funding them.