I want option C. A more cohesive research organization that aims to keep iOS open as long as Apple wants to keep it closed. Right now such an organization is basically spread across a history of individual contributors, such as yourself, and others, like Luca, Comex, Geohot, and dozens of others that come and go (many do end up at Apple). We already know iOS bugs are getting more valuable because the span between jailbreaks is high and Apple's response is much, much faster now. As always with technologists, if you can compensate someone fairly and let them keep doing work they love in an environment with no, or at least few, moral problems, they will gladly take that option over a higher paying, but shady, option. Apple currently wins that battle easily.
FWIW, p0sixninja wanted to create such a thing; it has a lot of complexity, it isn't clear how to fund such a thing, and I will argue that, in the end, it isn't about raw research: while it is very difficult to make software without bugs, it isn't impossible and only a small amount of code really needs to be part of the attack surface. Eventually there just won't be any bugs, even if it takes another ten years. The idea of relying on failure to maintain open platforms is a short term solution: we need legislation.
You are right. It is at best a stop gap, and with a lot of complexity. I think as technologists it is easy to reach for the obvious technological solution. Forming a lobbying group with a mandate is very alien to me, but I know some sort of political and legal course is going to matter the most in the long run. It is one of the reasons we (my company) donates to EFF :)
