Isn't contradictory imo to make the proposals voting system more equal for everyone, I mean a method to difficult whales to pass whatever proposals they want and fund that new projects (maybe as you said voting against them could be also a problem for that idk). I see what you point with that threshold funding, that can be lowered in time of need, I guess that is a valid argument if we think in people acting with good intentions.
When I commented about the return proposal I didn't suggest a fixed limit, only critized that if it can be changed that way is easily manipulable, that seems logical, gives flexibility, yes but at that cost.
I think that you can see as well as many others that there are problems with the system of proposals, solutions aren't easy but what I'm suggesting is to make an open debate with the people who knows well the system and make it more resilient and more fair.
My opinion is that this target should be a priority to everyone because we saw what happened with JS overtaking steemit and if the system remains the same way, we obviously have the same weak points. That's why I see in this an absolute priority and is a issue that I see very few people caring about.