Here it depends on the flexibility of each one, let’s imagine that all projects do the same and use the inactive tokens from the OP for different activities as long as they don’t “violate the original proposal”, it would be very difficult to follow and verify that each one complies with its original proposal. I think this would blur the main goal of governance and open the door to constant cheating.
Protocols can always reapply for another application, and they can also propose a tokenization change through governance, I don’t see any problem here. If they want to change they can propose it and bring it to a vote. If they want more OP tokens they can reapply for the next phase
Proposals are on the forum for at least 2 weeks, sometimes even longer, no great activity is required.
It is also part of the commitment made by the delegates when they applied to the forum. See here.
So I don’t see what’s wrong with a delegate fulfilling the commitment they made, just like other delegates who don’t, we can’t force them to spend time on governance.
I think it’s clear, protocols have to be clear what the OP tokens are going to be used for, that’s what the application template is for.