One possibility here that interests me is less the ability of an individual to fund a project so much as an org or a simple multisig being able to do so. For instance, if a token-holding org had privileged access to issue reporting, then members of that org could maybe post under their own IDs as “ambassadors” of that org (or even multiple token-holding orgs, as the case may be). One difficulty I see in such an approach is in conferring value upon a token which might be held by orgs of differing sizes, and one solution that occurs to me is for such a token to be “always for sale,” meaning that the org must determine the value of that token for itself, with its periodic contribution calculated from that value. (either 100%, or else some portion of a larger sum, the bulk of which could perhaps be staked toward some end or another if not simply paid to the token creator or prior holder… I have some thoughts around this and particular use-cases in mind, but this might be relatable to the DEV protocol)
For instance, a project can determine how many orgs of reasonably comparable size wish to offer support to their project and allow as many tokens to be minted so that each of these orgs has the opportunity to acquire one for themselves as a sort of series ‘A’ funding. If there are smaller orgs also wishing to offer support, another series may be minted for that purpose. If a funder’s token of whatever series gets bought up by a significantly larger org, an additional but more limited series might be issued with similar standing to the original, so long as the project maintainers feel capable of on-boarding additional support (given that the privileges there entailed may represent an increase in obligation for the maintainer). Additionally, time-locks of some sort could be incorporated to prevent serious disruption in the course of a transfer of ownership while also allowing for the coordination of new series of funding to smooth out the transition. (incidentally, this in itself would probably dissuade spontaneous or unplanned buy-outs, particularly as speculative power-plays)
Alternatively, a project may simply offer one sort of token for orgs/multisigs (designed to support specific functionality for orgs) and another sort for individuals. I’m not certain though if it would feasible or even possible to offer meaningful tiers of org support (set limits on the number of ambassadors, perhaps?), which is part of why I would favor the other approach to this one. More importantly, the “always for sale” approach renders that support as something of a public good, meaning that it cannot simply be monopolized by first-movers and/or deep-pockets, and the value conferred upon it would be more commensurate to that entailed.