I also generally agree with Michael, with a couple additional thoughts.
A smaller foot would also be appealing, if you didn't want to go footloose. Er, footfree. The rule of thumb I was taught is less than 40% of the bowl diameter, though 30% often makes a nicer bowl than 40.
A thick bowl is harder to get 'right'. It has a very distinctive look, which is very subject to personal aesthetic opinion. It's harder to achieve a satisfactory look, and especially a satisfactory feel when hefted, than with a more conventional thickness. It's not wrong, just harder to get it so you're happy with it.
Any finish will make this bowl look great. If you leave more 'defects' then it's art and not utility, and for me that means a film finish, but if you remove most or all of the 'defects', then it's at least potentially functional, which gets an oil finish.
This is a wonderful piece of wood, but you've got a lot of 'special' spots on there. It would be challenging for any of us to decide how to proceed in a way that maximized it's potential--retaining those we like and removing those we didn't. Ultimately, you get to choose, and then it's an expression of your personal artistic sensibility. Proceed boldly, and please post a picture of it when it's finished.