I'm definitely in favor of seeing something to this effect happen! I have my hands full with what I'm doing, but would can help how I can; there's a lot written here and I can kind of "index" it to answer most questions (often the answer is "here's the point where that issue reached a blocking point".)
To me, binding is the gaping hole in Rebol semantics. It's left out of the user guides...which consist of a lot of "what" with almost no "why". You learn how to mutate an unusual data structure, and are given some turnkey functions for internet and graphics that worked well cross-platform. It was a good zero-installation power tool for its time. Especially useful is PARSE--I don't know if you've messed with it much but it's quite a good example of a dialect in action.
Regarding binding: One of the problems that motivated me to start hacking on what became Ren-C was the issue of "definitional returns". I describe it in this post. It might be another illuminating example, for understanding the difference between Rebol2/Red and Ren-C.
More binding info:
- specific binding
- derived binding
- and now, virtual binding... (!)
I'd be happy to see it all replaced by better ideas, but these are the best I have so far for making the user experience that Rebol tried to give have a more legitimate basis.