This comment on hazzey's answer got too long, so here it is on its own.
TL;DR: Moderators should intervene less and less over time, but we shouldn't plan for it; it will happen on its own as the community grows.
Yes: the goal of any Stack Exchange site is to be self-governing enough that moderators are exception handlers, picking up the cases that fall through the cracks. Sites are designed to be moderated by the community, but we instate moderators to make sure things stay tidy, especially on a very young site where relatively few members of the community have moderation-related privileges.
What we don't do is appoint moderators and then ask them to stop closing questions once the community reaches a certain size or level of activity. This sort of thing happens organically over time:
- Currently, when a bad question is asked, here's what happens: a few users vote to close it; others without close voting privileges flag it. A moderator sees those flags in the review queue and closes the question with their hammer vote.
- In the future, when a bad question is asked, a few users might vote to close it; others without privileges might flag it; and by the time a moderator gets to it in the queue, the bad question has already been closed by 5 user votes. No actual mod intervention required.
That's not something we have to plan for. That's something that's going to start happening someday, and it will be a signal to the moderators (and the SE staff) that the community is more self-moderating and self-sustaining than it was when it was very young (our little site, all grown up! *sniff*).
At that point, moderators will still use their hammer close and delete powers - if, for example, they happen to be the first person to come across a spam answer, or if a question has 4 close votes already, or if something really egregious happens (which is an exception for them to handle). But most curation and moderation will be done by the community - and that's the way it should be.