To expand on point 3- I think finding a "natural" business model for protocol development is pretty fantastic. HTTP needs work, and we've known it for years. But when we tried to fix it... well, mostly large corporations with skewed incentives are driving the effort, so what you'd expect happens.
Tokens offer a different path to funding important infrastructure.
Right now, tokens clearly aren't doing a great job tracking underlying utility, so I won't make that claim. I do think that will improve as the space matures though.
Again, if TCP/IP captured money, how would that fund HTTP - they are not related (ETH doesn't fund random tokens on top of the Ethereum blockchain, so why would the TCP/IP people getting money give it to other protocols?). There is already enough lock-in with protocols due to inertia and politics. Adding money to it seems like it wouldn't improve things. If anything, it seems like it'd only make things worse. BitTorrent got money and that didn't seem to help them very much.
Tokens offer a different path, mostly because you can buy and sell them so freely. It's link pink sheets on steroids.
I doubt protocol development is hampered by funding. The real impediment is adoption, and you can't escape the large corporations there: if Chrome and Edge and Safari don't accept your HTTP changes, what's the point?
Tokens offer a different path to funding important infrastructure.
Right now, tokens clearly aren't doing a great job tracking underlying utility, so I won't make that claim. I do think that will improve as the space matures though.