The "root" we're talking about here is the namespace. Creating and promulgating a new one is a seizure of that namespace. This isn't a moral argument; it's an observation about plausible adoption. To wit: nobody is going to adopt a new root namespace that's monetized for its creators.

Which leaves me the question of how blockchain DNS could ever come to pass. What's in it for the project that pulls it off? The answer to that question is likely the reason it won't come to pass.

The project can be non-profit, like ENS was in the beginning, automatically burning the proceeds of the auctions.

I mean, anything that happens here would have to be a non-profit with really strong commitments not to enrich the founders, or it's DOA. But that's a necessary and not sufficient condition; you can imagine all sorts of non-profit attempts to effectively reclaim the roots that would fail for reasons other than money; for instance, such a project would also need to have governance matching the expectations of the rest of the Internet, which is tricky to do.