I agree, gridcoin is right now in a very comfortable position with a huge foundation fund. But right now it is not really used. And if it were, these reserves would shrink fast. Right now gridcoin depends on a lot of volunteer work and funding. Currently to my knowledge development is not payed, the block explorers are not payed (for providing a very important service for the network), the forum is not payed for. What about hosting costs for the gridcoin.us website?
I don't think relying on volunteers is necessarily a bad thing but gridcoin might not reach its full potential. If we talk about changing the reward mechanism why don't we design it in a way that allows gridcoin to self-sustain. The point is not to simply raise funds, it is rather the oposite. Implementing a system where coins are set aside on the protocol level makes traditional fund raising unnecessary.

But if we do something like that we should do it right and not rush into it. The voting mechanism for example is in the current state not the right tool to decide about funds. It has to be designed in a way that represents network consensus. Right now votes with a very low participation rate can pass. And even votes with a high participation rate might not represent the network consensus.