Not to get into a tangent but from a technical standpoint Iota doesn't have very strong legs to stand on, the project is likely at a standstill as it wonders how to convince people that the impossible is possible in that the processing and energy requirements of doing the transactions is likely much more than the devices they claim to be aiming for use in, and as things are now they won't be able to handle many transactions at all. Plus their distribution was terrible and it's likely an elaborate pump and dump with tons of buzzwords to distract and attract investors.

That aside, I do look forward to seeing how other dags or types of entanglement networks work out when tested to the limits in real-world cases.

Call it personal preference then that I do not think you should incentivize network activity as you are proposing. Look what happens when you give a refund on transactions, they already do that for, guess what, big stock exchanges. It distorts markets and volume for volume's sake is never a good thing, at least from what I've seen of when it is practiced in the real world. It just puts money in the pockets of those who can produce massive volume at scale, as they pocket the transaction bonus in a way that no normal people with access to normal amounts of computing power could.

Yes, government spends a lot of money wastefully, that is not news. But lots of services are provided in many countries, and so far I don't think anyone would argue that most people in the crypto space are seeking asset protection and return on investment. We are just seeing the new capital of cryptocurrency accumulate mostly in the hands of a new few, but I don't see them jumping at the chance to blow all their money on fixing societal ills so much as try to increase their networth.