In general I think the proposal is really good, but I am concerned about the apparent lack of checks and balances. What would happen if a proposal that is really bad for the longterm prospects of the coin but is really good for the short term profit of the MN owners is approved? Let's say a proposal to change the reward split to 85/10/5 (MN/dev funds/miners). Again, maybe I just lack faith in people, but I really worry about selfiness in this system if there are no safeguards. Obviously that example is extreme, but what is the current plan to prevent such abuses?
First of all, this whole thing will need to be hashed out, and there will have to be checks and balances.
And per above, changing the reward would not be something that can go on the table anymore. This will be hard coded into the core of the wallet eventually, and not changed anymore. Nobody would support it unless, somehow, there were a dire need, which is highly unlikely.
Again, per one of your comments, funds that are not spent should never go to the MNs Only back to the miners. We must not allow them to be able to vote themselves money. You could do this by simply making an account with the past year's surplus, pay out 1/210240 th of the account for the following year to each account that finds a block. It doesn't have to mix with the rewards, simply be payed out directly to the miners per block, distributing it fairly.