I think it is helpful to think of how centralized and decentralized processes life-cycles work.

A centralized process has a goal/demand defined by centralized planning (stakeholders). This goal helps the builders coordinate effort towards a limited array of use cases. Then, solutions for those use cases are engineered into existence. And repeat. It is very straight forward, and agile (haha), but that demand might be overestimated, as central planner might be wrong, incompetent or dishonest.

Decentralized processes have a more "organic" development life-cycle. Builders build with their own use case in mind. Once a use case becomes popular (ie., there is demand), community adoption will help steer development of these solutions. This is slower, and there is no clear finish line, as demand evolves with time. Some solutions might be abandoned along the way. Surviving solutions will be the ones that actually provide the most value, as there is continuous demand.

there is a natural chaos in the way decentralized processes work, and time frames differ from centralized ones.

The fact that this https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips is the current reference for how nostr is supposed to work is a coincidence. There is no guarantee that this will still be true in 5 years.

People can only build ideas they see value in. Only time will tell who is right or wrong what works and what doesn't. 

I would advise people to be wary of making or blieveling in "this is how things should be" arguments when it comes to the development of decentralized projects, as such arguments are filled with bias and projection. in an organic decentralized process, you can only look back and say what has worked best so far. there is no telling how things should be. any predictions are only that, and have no bearing on reality. 

 Then let's get fresh value statements into the mix, new users who will tell us what they like and would spend money on.
Because money somebody's money is always spent, right now by 'free relay' operators and devs who ask donations. Foundations are good, grants help over the early days but people vote with their feet, thumbs and their wallet. No better communication tool but money itself. For that we need solid basics, not zap forwarding and.  

 By all means, give it a try. Just adjust your expectations as you progress. It might be that it takes longer that you might have imagined or predicted. It might be that the solution you are interested in is not in high demand, and that people will flock behind a different idea.. even if that idea comes to fail at some point in the future.

and on that note: https://x.com/geyserfund/status/1811434402041282680