yes but, shockingly, they have the same mastermind behind it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerocoin

No. Zcoin implementation != Zerocoin. Also, I wouldn't say that Green is a "mastermind behind Zcash". He is one of the team members. Zooko Wilcox is generally seen as the "main guy" in the Zcash team.

People complained a lot for 10% of Zcash going to the founders (in the form of a 20% draw on the first half of mining). But that value and expertise are used to ensure bugs like this Zcoin attack do not occur.

There is no proof that currencies that have pre-allocations for certain people are more bug-free than ones that don't.

I'd argue that any pre-allocation should be seen as a bug and so the number of bugs on average is about 1 higher in those cases.

> used to ensure bugs like this...do not occur

Then compensate for that. Create a pool that pays out for each year without vulnerabilities.

If there are vulnerabilities, those vulnerabilities will be exploited. That will reduce the currency value and the value of their 'founders reward'

Not if they cash out during "IPO." I don't like the idea of a founder/developer pool, but if they are going to have one, there should be a vesting period, such that the granted coins cannot be moved for X years after receiving them. This will keep the incentive alive, and I think Ethereum would have a lot more potential if something like this was employed.

This is exactly what Zcash did. The Zcash Founders' Reward "vests" over four years.

This is an really interesting idea, but I'm genuinely curious if you have an idea as to how it might be implemented. I'm not an expert on cryptocurrencies, but I don't know how I would encode the condition "has a vulnerability been discovered this year" into the protocol.