I asked this once in Saif's telegram group and this is one of the responses I agree with from an austrian economic perspective:

"I think I'm with saylor on this. I don't like the culture of Bitcoin development running on donations. I find that to be a massive attack vector, and also a recipe failure. Nothing good gets built by charity. I prefer having professionals handle it. I also prefer if Bitcoin devs invest in Bitcoin and become wealthy and have an incentive to develop Bitcoin to make it better. If they need funding, I prefer if companies or individuals fund them for specific jobs.

The culture of glorifying donating for Bitcoin devs is misplaced. This isn't a charity. This is serious business. 

Donations exert pressure over development and create centralization risks and also create a professional bureaucratic class that has an inordinate say in how Bitcoin is run. I know for example John Newberry has received tons of funding and it did get to his head and he did start acting like the boss of Bitcoin.

If saylor were to give out a specific grant for open source devs it would be a risk, it would make him too influential and it could make the devs too powerful. 

If saylor wants something done, he'll hire a real engineer and not call it a donation.” 

 🧐