So, in any case, to break the ice, I think exhausting crowdfunding via Kickstarter and Anon should be a priority and DEFINITELY precede any further discussion of more controversial funding methods.
Good to see that questions asked regarding costs implementing necessary features for a lively future of monero resulted in a renewed (potentially) fruitful discussion about some possibilities. I think, whatever the outcome, it is good to have this issue properly adressed and put higher on the list of priorities of the community as a whole.
I agree with xulescu's statement above. Before considering rigorous changes to core principles (as controversial as those principles may be) we must first try different (less rigorous) alternatives, simply because we all agreed on these rules when we bought in. Changing those during game-time is far from ideal (and very risky). Only if the alternatives do not work, we should re open the discussion regarding post-mine, emission etc.
----
Let's get some structure in this discussion/process.
What funding methods can we think of, or have been thinked of already? Please update this list (which is in random order) and let's use it as a guideline:
1 Crowdfunding per project
2 Miner with dev donation fee (ie instead of 5 to claymore, 2.5 to devs of xmr, 2.5 to dev of the miner)
3 ...
4 ...
When we have a list we could name some alternatives per method. Then the pro's and con's per subitem. The prerequisites/input needed (time, people, data etc). We could also (maybe at a later date) determine when it would be considered a succes (looking at the resources needed to setup).
I have one addition to this list which is an idea I've been playing with for a while. It's something in between donating and loaning, I will try to work out some details and make a good description before planting this here and let you guys shine some light on it.