inserted by developers who excellent at what they do have no track record as incentive designers, economic parameter setters, etc.
They do in fact have a track record. Various economic- and incentive-related decisions have been made in Bitcoin development over the past 6 years and it hasn't completely blown up yet. That includes both changes and decisions about what
not to change.
I guess this conclusion depends in part on how big a failure you think the "blocksize debate" represents. From where I sit, the blockchain is still working, transactions are being processed, etc. I don't see a major failure even in that.
I think the blocksize is the biggest
controversial economic aspect they have touched (kind of easy to change something when it's not controversial), but - see my edit - I don't think it would be good to vest power even in someone who did have a good track record on that.
I do think we will be fine whatever happens with blocksize, and are fine now, but that adoption could be set back quite a ways if too much friction is introduced and circuitous paths are taken, so I think it's worth pointing out some existing burdens on weighing on the market discovery process.
I mean... for how long are you going to dodge the very simple fact that BU is NOT a market driven solution but one that leaves EVERYTHING up to the miners?
It's painfully obvious to anyone paying attention yet you (and others to which I've raised the point) continue to swerve around the issue.