I thought of that too, but it's too static. Some projects may take a while to save up money. The vote needs to be a REAL VOTE.
Wisdom of the crowd, except when I don't like it, won't work. You either have real votes or you don't. "If you vote yes, it counts, if you vote no, it doesn't count" isn't a real vote system...
If there is an option to get more money you will pick that one and not development. It's greed and not wisdom of the crowd. If greed is not left as an option then I am forcing you to investigate the available projects and choose the one that will bring more value to your asset that you already own (don't compare it to the government). You can exit and enter the crypto world anytime.
The funds are going to be held by the percentage of the block reward. Block reward is an incentive for providing service whether that is mining or MN hosting. Now there will be an incentive for developing, but developing is different than mining or MNs. We can't have developers competing every 2.5 minutes offering new code to the network and then let the network decide who is the best and put him on the block reward. We are left with two options:
1. Being able to vote rewards back to the MN/miners (or whatever) since there is no decent project to be funded. Greed is left open here.
2. Being able to vote Y/N/A and even if no project is being developed the money stays and accumulates until a worthy project gets funding. This option leaves the voters with the responsibility and the choice of making a mistake. Yes, some projects can take funding and then lead to no real development being done but I like the idea of being able to change your vote on a project when you feel like it and shut down the funding to that project.
Neither of the two options are perfect but I am leaning towards the second one.
There was a part you mentioned something about inflation. Can you explain that part? How can the holding of development funds bring inflation?