Third is debatable but I would condone the creation of a counterparty foundation with elected boardmembers/developers.
This foundation could act as a crowdfunding platform where features are proposed and voted on and bounties collected for them.
We sometimes forget that not all centralization is bad. We like to go to the grocery store to buy what we need because it would be a pain in the ass to drive to one store to buy bread and another store to buy apples, and another for tuna.
I think a community based approach is great, but also that a strong foundation could help shape and promote innovation and progress.
Counterparty is an open-source protocol with no outside funding, as such a 'Counterparty Foundation' would be an artificial and ultimately meaningless construction. It goes without saying, however, that if members of the community would like to crowdfund or would like to propose bounties for which to crowd fund to the Counterparty Team, they are encouraged to do so!
Counterparty is and will be a community-driven project. This is not a criticism of centralization in-itself, it is just to point out that centralization (in the form of a foundation) within Counterparty is untenable given the nature of the project.
Don't you already have a foundation in a loose sense of the word?
Even your profile says "Counterparty team member".
So there is a team. You created a team that works together toward a common goal.
Your website is setup in a way that it certainly seems like there is already a counterparty foundation.
On that note, it would be nice to install a forum on the site so we have somewhere more organized to speak and trade.
This thread is getting too large and disorganized.