This is turning into a very productive discussion. 
I personally feel that an NNS treasury would be open to abuse, particularly given the centralisation we’re seeking to address. I think the fact that the NNS can mint ICP also makes a treasury largely redundant. Inflation based renumeration makes sense though.
This is how node providers are incentivised, and it appears to have worked very well so far. Network security depends just as much on diligent voters as on reliable node providers. A lot of work goes into tracking that node providers are doing a good job, and rewarding them accordingly. That’s not currently the case for voters, largely because there’s usually no such thing as a correct vote.
I think there are other aspects of the node provider workflow that would work well though. The fact that onboarding node providers comes down to a vote, and the quality of the node provider is taken into account in context (e.g. where are the node locations, and do they sit well with current needs).
A parallel can be drawn between onboarding node providers and electing reviewers (ones who can convince the NNS that they are reliable, skilled and diligent).
I personally think it’s done such a good job that it should be formalised into the NNS, in the same sort of way as node providers are selected by the NNS and rewards periodically minted to them by the NNS. Re-elections would make the process competitive, driving reviewers to push the limits and keep sharp.