I suspect that if the DAO was truly decentralized, this would be a problem. But eth follows a model by Consensys wherein the devs are paid not by the DAO but by the VCs with large sums of funding accumulated in eth (that they likely have large amounts of).

In this case, it would seem to me that the DAO funding structure will be more of a marketing gimmick (that will not be abandoned at any cost---especially when DACs (DAOs) exist that suffer similar problems but have no centralized company paying for core development).

All that matters in the end for eth is whether or not there will be enough money pouring into eth to counter the sell off. Winklevoss new fund for eth might help in that arena.

I personally agree with you Xeroc...but then again I have watched Ethereum from the days when it was simply a yellow paper get thrown across all media worldwide---before the yellowpaper even made it into a white paper. That to me says that ethereum has big players in on it (not grass roots like it would like people to believe) who can afford to all work together and lose a bit of money up front to ensure the projects they believe will be best for their bottom line (and future power base) to succeed. It would be worth the hit for such people because if they become the defacto place for smart contracts in the future, the small amount of spending required to keep the system afloat today would be nothing compared to the profits (and power).