There is also the issue of trust in the peg. If traders expect witnesses to act aggressively to protect the peg then it becomes unprofitable to buy SBD at >$1, and SBD will have a greater tendency to stay at $1 on its own. However, if they don't, then it becomes profitable to buy SBD at >$1 (or in other circumstances sell at <$1) and we end up with a broken peg and more need for intervention. So the whole thing can become self-fulfilling in both positive and negative ways.
This, by the way, is one reason I have supported the feed premium. While we disagree on that specifically, we absolutely agree that it is an ugly, messy tool that has negative unintended consequences. However, I consider it important to be willing to protect the peg, even when it is messy to do so, precisely so we will be in the situation to have to consider using those ugly, messy tools less often. But improving the system is better still (though of course has its own challenges).
I think for the most part we are in agreement. I do feel very strongly in protecting the peg, but I also feel very strongly in not breaking the SBD->STEEM conversion 'contract' as well. Both are important responsibilities of the witnesses, and unfortunately the current situation makes us chose between the two.
There are very valid arguments to be made in favor of breaking the contract in favor of the peg, so you won't see me arguing against that. On the other side though, there is also 'real' damage done by breaking the contract in favor of the peg too. It is a very tough decision / judgement call, but personally I have chosen to favor the contract over the peg at this point in time.
I think that attests for why a change like this is needed though. If there is no good way to maintain both the peg and the contract under what we can only assume are relatively 'normal' conditions for the crypto-world, then I think it is an indication that a change is needed.