Well, as your proposal is currently written, I will be voting against it.
I am not a major land holder and I get a lot of value from my older, maxed out Gold Foil cards by playing in the Expert Gold Foil events. There just aren't enough players that own Expert Wild cards to fill 64 seats, but maybe they would fill 32 seats. I should not be penalized by removing a lucrative tournament because there are too many seats in the event. I would support a different proposal that scales back the spots that finish in the money to make sure all tournaments continue to get played.
I understand completely what you mean and I discussed the scaling down you describe in some draft versions, but I really don't like proposals that include too many changes where a voter may be forced to take the good with the bad or vote against something they like because there is something else included they don't, so I removed it again.
My suggestion (to you and others who enjoy these tournaments) would be to wait a bit how things shake out, see which tournaments regularly get cancelled and then introduce a new proposal to modify their parameters. I personally would vote for such tournaments to be modified so they can happen regularly under the 75% participation rule with a modified and reduced prize pool (due to the earlier cutoff). That said, I believe many would rather want to see a complete rework of tournaments (me among them) so I don't know how much traction such a proposal would get.