I hate to say this after the fact, but proof of burn is a really, really, really stupid, inefficient and unproductive concept.
There are much better ways to handle proof of stake.
That money could have fed a whole village in africa for a year.
I would much rather the devs got that 1,400 BTC than it just being destroyed pointlessly.
Of course, I've said this after the fact.
In the same way, many still claim proof of work (as done by Bitcoin) as a "needlessly wasteful expenditure of computing resources". Neither is true. Proof of work, as done for bitcoin and other currencies, is done to secure the blockchain. Proof of burn, as done here, is done to produce a permanent record for fair distribution of an asset that you can't get by sending the "otherwise burnt" BTCs to the devs, to the nearest charity, or whomever.
Next, people are going to come out and claim that the 10000 BTC pizza was "a pointless idea". Just like in that example, a price was set for something that otherwise had no perceived value.
Think of the 1400 BTC burned as assets to purchase XCP "mining rigs" that produced however many coins you have now. (In fact, the bitcoin.it proof of burn page gives this very description). That is the value of proof of burn.
That said, donating to the devs (or better yet, contributing to the project by testing, writing articles, designing sites, etc. ) is a great idea. We can launch publicity campaigns and such after the burn period and after stuff like a centralized exchange and an online client are up and running.
I think it is a logical fallacy to assume that proof-of-burn is the only method of securing a permanent record of fair distribution.
Let me suggest this hypothetical:
I could contact a donation agent at the WWF or Red cross and say, "I want to donate somewhere between $100,000-$1,000,000 to your organization in the form of bitcoin. All you have to do is post an address on your website where you would like to receive the bitcoins."
They could post a news article on their website with the intended address, then a system could be set up to watch and distribute XCP based on the coins sent to that address, much in the same way we are doing now.
In this hypothetical situation, we know that I nor anyone but the charity controls the bitcoin address.
In another hypothetical:
A small amount could be shaved off the XCP amount before being dispensed to the recipients. I send 1 BTC to an address. I am awarded 1000 XCP minus 2-3% which is award to the dev accounts (I get 980, they get 20).
This would be an autodonation, but we know that they couldn't run off with my BTC, they would actually need to develop XCP into something valuable to profit from my BTC.
One of the largest problems with cryptocurrencies I find is that they are developed by programmers, not economists or necessarily freedom fighters. Most developers are focused on making the code work and not developing a fairer or more efficient system. If you're not a programmer, fat chance at getting anyone to listen to your great ideas or join your cause.
When we look back at all the electricity we've wasted on bitcoins PoW concept to "secure the blockchain" as you put it, I think we will be a little disappointed at how wasteful and naive we were.
I had the same issue but I realized that they are correct in needing a completely trustless method for how Counterparty is different than Mastercoin, and the charity method is not trustless.
Also the coins are not wasted their value is simply spread across the system. Regarding electricity, this is the only way to secure the blockchain, so it has a utilitarian value. Otherwise if you follow this type of logic, we should all be living in caves. Which might be fun until you realize there is no hot shower.
There is a lot of good stuff written on these subject matters over the years, I suggest you look for and read why PoW is used.
It remains to be seen whether it is better to have a sustainable funding mechanism for an open source initiative, like Mastercoin, or a completely unfunded operation that relies on volunteerism perhaps tied to corporate initiatives.
To think about it further, if I were an executive at Paypal or Google and I decided that I wanted to release coupons or whatever on Bitcoin would I choose something like Counterparty or Mastercoin?
We have already seen that large corporations, true to innovation adoption research lit, do not mess with new stuff that has no value attached to it. Unless they are irrational. Thus players like Google or Paypal, if they are rational, will want to deal with token systems that have enough liquidity and users, as otherwise the investment capital is too high for them given risk and there is barely any research done on how to successful do corporate venture capital with open source initiatives like this with hidden members.
However having said that once a system reaches a certain state of liquidity and users then the corporate manager will naturally want to adopt it to maximize shareholder profits. Having a choice between a foundation based approach which they can donate to and is somewhat organized in a structure that he/she is used to, or a loose collective of unidentifiable actors, the corporate manager is more likely to adopt the former rather than the latter.
But perhaps that is the role of Counterparty in the ecosystem for the wild things. Just like in the old days (1800s) there was the NYSE and then there was the curb side traders (which became the AmEx).
I don't myself believe in monopolies, and I think there might be several systems in place competing for users. However, projects like Ethereum, NXT and Bitshares, while perhaps having good intentions are going to have a hard time as they lack the liquidity and network that comes with Bitcoin. That is a big deal.
But who knows. No one has a crystal ball.
? 
