My opinion...
We need to understand the two separate concepts of income (increases value of BTS) versus distribution (application of income earned).
Burning is not a source of income. It is a distribution of income. Burning is not the main goal of BTS to increase value.
Revenue is earned when money comes into the system from things such as transaction fees. It used to be that revenues and burning occurred simultaneously, thus the past confusion of the two concepts. That is, transaction fees were used to instantly buy BTS and burn any excess not payable to the delegates. This represented an instant distribution of income to all owners, because there was no way for the business to hold it as a reserve.
The new approach will change that, by holding the BTS in reserve instead of burning it. So when the fees are earned (in excess of pay to witnesses), that is earned revenue that goes into the pool, which is owned by BTS. From that expenses are paid to the workers. The remainder is the net profit of the business.
The choices from there are what to do with that profit. Do you distribute it - i.e. burn it? Or do you reinvest it - i.e. use it to fund other work or projects? Or do you even use if for strategic purposes - i.e. to fund acquisitions etc? The quality of the decisions made in these areas will ultimately determine what value the marketplace is willing to place upon BTS. So we need to ensure those are truly wise decisions. There is no point in burning for the sake of appearances as long as there exist better ways to reinvest that money, especially early in our growth cycle. At the point of saturation there is no point in reinvesting, and all profits should be burned. But its good to have both options.
There are other choices too. If we spend more on witnesses and workers than we earn in fees etc, then we are making a loss, which dilutes the business. This can make sense for a startup, but from an investors' perspective, only with a convincing plan to move it to state of future profit (or make a trade sale to another party, but I assume that's not the end goal). The notional amount of BTS to be initially allocated to the reserve pool (ie. 1.2 bn BTS) is a signal to the market as to how much we are willing to dilute the business before eventually turning a profit. From an investor's perspective, the bigger this pool, the longer the time I expect I'll have to wait before BTS is profitable. For example, if we believed we could be profitable in 3 years, there would be no need for 1.2bn BTS to exist as a dilutionary spending reserve. Of course maybe we are just being really conservative, and conservative management is not a bad thing either. I'm not sure what the right figure should be, but hopefully this gives you some idea of how investors might look at things.