Is it not obvious that inflation is a brilliant way to force everyone to continually donate a tiny amount? Does it not effectively solve the tragedy of the commons problem? Are we sure our idealist attitudes are not interfering with our judgement? What does it matter that voting etc. on how to spend this influx of money is flawed, when we know that it can solve at least one problem that individuals as individuals can not, namely the situation where each donating a tiny amount would be rational if they all did it, but they do not do it since they can not be sure everyone or even anyone else does. Pending a perfect solution, do we not already know that we require both types of spending for the whole system to be supra-rational?
I think of it more like shareholders agreeing to a dilution in exchange for a capital infusion. I think it is indeed a good idea in the short run and works well for DPOS. Early on in a networks life transaction fees are unlikely to be sufficient to motivate growth. They will merely cover costs.
So I have thought about it some and recognized that no company pays a dividend while in its growth phase. Only after it has matured does it start paying dividends.
So paying 100% of transaction fees to the delegates is a middle ground. Have the percent paid to delegates decrees down to 10% over 10 years as the network matures.
On the other hand, paying dividends is marketing in its own right and is effectively paying every shareholder to grow the network.
I think that transaction fees will more than cover infrastructure growth as the network grows.