You have touched on an interesting topic.
I believe that @steem.dao funds can and should be effectively used to improve the blockchain. But for this, the 2,200 SBD that are deposited into the account daily is quite enough. It would be best to burn all the funds that are already in the account, while accompanying this process with advertising.
We already have a kind of board of directors, these are witnesses. Unfortunately, I, as a regular user, have no idea what they do. I've tried reading a few of their posts in the Witness Activities community, but I haven't found anything big, or I just don't understand anything since I'm not a programmer. Also, all the witnesses are working separately on their own projects, I don't feel a team spirit for the future of this platform.
Overall I like your board of directors idea. I think that it is possible to choose, let's say, 5 people. In advance, you need to make a list of criteria that each of them must meet. If people meet these criteria, it will go some way to guaranteeing that they will manage their funds honestly.
But there is another problem. Has anyone tried to submit an offer in the last few years?
Personally, I'd rather see it retained than burned. Basically, if it's in the SPS, it's out of circulation anyway. But if we figure out a way to manage it effectively, it could still be a very useful resource.
There actually was a proposal submitted back in May. At present, it probably requires use of the CLI wallet, but it is (apparently) possible to submit a proposal.
Yes, I saw that proposal, you reminded me.
Does that mean it got funding?
I think that "Started" just means that the time/date when the proposal begins has passed and the end date hasn't yet been reached. In that particular case, today's date is between May 1, 2022 and May 1, 2023.
In order to start receiving SBDs, the proposal would have to receive more votes than the "return proposal", currently listed in the first slot (i.e. more than 47.2 million SP would need to vote for it).
One point that may not be obvious is that the proposal can bounce above/below the "return proposal" any number of times, so it is possible that funding starts, stops, and starts again repeatedly as people adjust their votes.