This is the one I want to see made generally used for monitors, and pretty much everything: Adobe Wide Gamut RGB color space. Not sure why they say there's 8% waste in representing imaginary colours though. If the Pro-photo colour space wastes 13% then it's hard to see where Adobe are wasting as much as 8% with theirs even though the representation is nonlinear at the extremes of red and blue. Even if it does, that just demands a greater bit depth, and those bits can be stored more cheaply than they were per pixel when the sRGB colour space was agreed on.
Actually I'd shift the green from 525 to 520 nm, and bring the blue end in and raise it from 380 nm to 420 nm to avoid wasted storage space, no imaginary colours that way. The cost would be a bit less high end blue/violet on monitors, but that could be a welcome thing, we don't want to give cataracts to a mass public who spend too long squinting into bright monitors.
One point about the smaller gamut was that is was agreed on for general home and office viewing conditions. Professional colour work is usually done in darker places. So in a bright club or theatre you might not see much advantage to 650 or lower and find 635 just as good, but that's still not true. It's only true if the colour balance is natural, formed directly or indirectly by blackbody radiation, analogous to sounds made from the natural harmonic series. Laser shows are like music made from sine waves. They're also designed to be intense. That means that we are fully able to see the distinction in the low end reds and high end blues, whatever we tell ourselves about that.
