I'm just back from the fun that was HiTB Amsterdam 2011. (Plug: you should check out one of the HiTB series if you haven't yet; Dhillon and crew invariably put a good, intimate conf together).
I sat on the day 2 keynote panel on "The economics of vulnerabilities". As usual, talking about this topic was great fun and the audience asked some great questions. Predictably, the topic strayed on to black market sales as an interesting sub-discussion. With 6 people on the panel, it was hard to cover this in the detail it deserves, and I think a few important subtleties were missed. I'll try to cover some of them here.
Vulnerability reward programs do not "buy" bugs, nor do they aim to compete with the black market
Remember that the black (or grey) markets buy exploits, not vulnerabilities. The latter are just the first step towards exploits, which are hard to write on modern software. Also remember that reward programs are not buying even vulnerabilities. Typically, they are a "thank you" mechanism for talented researchers who used their skills to make things better.
Also, there's often a separation of which researchers participate where, along ethics lines; see below.
A vulnerability reward program will indirectly compete with black market sales
It's interesting to note that a reward program doesn't have to outbid dubious markets in order to have a benefit in this area. These days, there's a lot of independent rediscovery of the same vulnerabilities -- ZDI quoted 22 "collisions" for the most recent year.
So any motivation you can provide for white hats to discover vulnerabilities will inevitably kill the occasional black market vulnerability.
A quick story in support: the WebKit vulnerability used by VUPEN to pwn Safari at this years' pwn2own competition was independently reported to the Chromium project by researcher Martin Barbella. Thanks to Inferno's lightning quick fix, Chrome entered pwn2own without that bug. Martin, of course, received a $1000 Chromium Security Reward (on top of all his others).
Black / grey market sales are a dangerous alternative to consider
Each researcher has to set their own ethics, of course. Hopefully, most of us get into this industry to make users safer and software more secure. Aside from reward programs and ZDI, there's also a large number of well-paid security jobs sponsored by corporations, so no need to start selling exploits to feed the family.
If you sell an exploit to someone, it's basically going to be used to exploit end users of the software. This could harm a lot of people if the target is mass malware for financial gain. Or it could seriously harm some targeted individuals if a government of dubious human rights commitment gets their hands on it.
"Credit", whilst important, is not a full replacement for a monetary reward
To be clear about it: if you launch a vulnerability reward program, you will receive more vulnerability reports from a wider range of researchers. The power of credit and prestige is often cited as an argument to not launch a reward program, but the fact remains that you will get more reports if you have a program in place. And as long as you have a culture of fixing security bugs promptly, your users will be safer thanks to having a reward program.