b1 propose to burn the Worker Proposal Fund

Block.one CEO Brendan Blumer just suggested to drop the entire Worker Proposal Fund which would currently be fed by 4% of the annual inflation.

That is to go along with a distribution of trading fees (supposedly RAM and CPU) to voters...:
https://twitter.com/BrendanBlumer/status/1023183731392049152

Source Image

Where as i am highly critical of @Dan's and B1's u-turn in governance and slashing everything that made the constitution meaty and also what they themselves had been marketing EOS for oveer a year, i am inclined slightly more positive to this suggestion:

For one the Worker Proposal Fund would be needed to establish the basic technical infrastructure, which currently would be - or better said - would have been required for the EOS launch, like explorer tools, wallets, voting platforms, referendum techs... etc.
You see, we are about to have these all and the WP fund which is supposed to deliver it all, comes well after all those things will be already in place.
Of course it could be used for other services as well, like arbitration... see, that is just about to be slashed anyway....

So actually there in't really anything left for this to fund other than dapps and services, which will rather serve the need of particular user groups and therefore should definitely be funded via free market competition.

I also followed the people that are working to set up this thing loosely, and there are so many questions open: It's clear, that you can't have this thing running on an app level, but need payed agents behind that, who do the project management and auditing, and its more than unclear, who may propose or request which services, and at what stages there should be a voting. And then again, the personal would need to be audited too?

Does this remind you of something? Exactly, if there was a controversy around ECAF, this thing would be the megabomb! And other than with the intended governance aspects of EOS, there has never been a real outline of how the WPF should operate.
So this is highly prone to be milked by players that try to sell their services to uninformed voters, and get some statelike funding instead on competing on these things on the free market and could turn out as the nightmare we associate with federal project spendings.

Quite other than the constitution, that - once cut down to a stump - might be near impossible to reinstate, the WPF could be easily set up again by vote any time, if there is a high level need identified.

I only wonder how the proposal to remove the fund could be implemented in transparent and decentralised manner, since we don't have functioning worker proposals in the first place.... Any ideas?