All of these factor point towards a total rethink about what infrastructure is needed to support NXT and just how much it is going to keep it running FOREVER. People are not being motivated by forging to add personal nodes to the network, and cheap nodes are looking more and more unlikely. Both the infrastructure and the finances required to keep NXT going are going to end up being larger than we think now, only three months in with a tiny active network. And yes, I admit I want to be on the infrastructure committee as a voting member and push for a 1000 TPS network (the original NXT spec!!!) if that is all possible alongside our main network. That's more infrastructure expense, but if we succeed, it is EXACTLY what will make people sit up and notice NXT. And send the price to the moon.
If our strategy is to set up a large enough fund to maintain the infrastructure and to support the network (with or without the 1000tps target) forever, then we have failed from the start. Any fund should be for bootstrapping only. If the
concept & design of the 1000tps feature is such that it will not be able to incentivise users to support it without centralisation, then it will not be sustainable. It should be designed such that anybody can see the economic incentive of setting up a high powered high bandwidth node, and to keep it running forever. I don't have the answer for such a design, but I have the answer for a design that is dependent on large centralised funds to keep it running forever.
I support the proposal to increase infra fund size, but only for the design of a sustainable model and to help bootstrap it.