David,
I am 100% behind your decisions and I think you've made the right call on the issue of not forcing a vote on setting aside funds. However, I must ask that we please consider at least having a short-term period of accepting donations for the foundation post-launch to a foundation address before assessing community health and making any broader decisions regarding the direction of iota.
My few reasons are simple and all of which come from the fickle, relative nature of people when it comes to making pledge commitments.
Specifically, without a place to send funds someone can make a pledge to offer X but, as time goes on, they may forget to make that donation or change their mind on how much they prefer to actually contribute. Even general life circumstances may occur that cause them to backtrack on their decision once it's time to contribute. Ethics aside, this type of behavior will happen and we can't count on those iotas until they materialize.
Furthermore, since many people did offer a verbal agreement to the foundation months ago, they may have checked-out and might not come back for a few months. These people may stand by their commitments but we can't count/expect their iotas if they aren't going to make a deposit for 4-6 months after launch.
Conversely, I think it's easier for the community to rally together when we are seeing concrete goals being met. Yes, Yassin has been doing a stellar job running a spreadsheet with updated pledged totals for the foundation and the deal but those are just numbers on a sheet until they materialize and, for many, that's not motivating. However, if we see the actual fund accumulating we can work together and strategize ways to increase real contributions if we are coming up short.
You can't count the funds you have until you actually have them. For many reasons, earmarked funds may not materialize because we are relying on to many people to step-up to their promises they've made more than a month ago. In fact, considerable research has shown that in pledge-drives most funds are sent immediately after the drive. However, the funds that are not quickly sent after the pledge is made (within, say, 1 week) are very-likely to never materialize. An entire campaign could have tremendous success in the short-term. However, if people have to wait to long to fulfill their committed funds, statistically, they will not materialize.
I've been a part of organizations that have had pledge-drives, I've seen this in action and their is plenty of research on the topic. The best way to bring in the money is to have a way for the people to get the funds to you ASAP. Don't COUNT promises until you see them in the bank. Anything that materializes "later" 1+ months after the pledge, should be considered "icing on the cake" because if people don't fulfill their commitments immediately, they simply won't.
Crypto-tokens/iota is a different beast but human psychology is still the same. We will probably be in a better place post-launch considering the anticipation of iotas, but even if we get a 5% commitment before launch, I'd be shocked to see 75% of those funders pay up.
Ok, that's my $.02. I respect your decisions but I think what I'm outlining is a bit of wisdom based on experience.
Yes, excellent bit of wisdom. Pledges are just that, pledges, until there is a way to make them realized. Once there is a way to actually send and collect donations you will see the community step up and get the foundation funded.