Let's go back to the past discussion on how to use the Treasury effectively.
Treasury-pallet Bounty Extension #5713 (https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/issues/5713) tries to tackle the issue with spending instruments. At the moment, the Council has two distinct Spending Instruments at its disposal to execute payouts from the Treasury but these do not scale and council members do not have time, expertise or interest in activating the mechanism.
In order for a Council to be successful, it should have a general direction and thus have (strategic) objectives. At the very least a Council should work from a coherent set of core-values. When a Council puts its Treasury's funds to work to achieve those objectives, execution of that work should be effective (and ideally efficient).
Extension #5713 proposal offers an initial option for "budgeting" the Treasury funds, at least in a more ad-hoc way for now. Thanks to previous discussions we can summarise some open questions on the design:
BountyActivated bounty should be cancellable by the council? Yes / No. 3.a. should the curator be a Multisig? Yes/No.
3.b. should a curator have a verified identity? Yes/No.
3.c. should a curator be part of the council? Yes/No.
3.d. should the council be able to change curators? Yes/No.
3.e. the idea of sub-bounties: should curators have the capacity to create sub-bounties? Yes/No.
Please keep in mind the goal is to solve scalability with regards to Treasury spending. With a clearer agreement on these topics we will be able to move this experiment further, maybe add new elements and start using these funds for Kusama's benefit.
Please add your answers to the questions above and any other point I am missing for this discussion, I am sure there are more open questions and these are only a few.
Current implementation : https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/pull/5715