I never cease to be amazed by the number of people that think protocols should be changed the moment they don't personally like the results.

The existing stake-based voting system is the core design principle of Hive. It perfectly allows for a complete cessation of all DHF spending: voters just need to stop voting for proposals.

But apparently the will of the voters isn't enough. Instead, we should add new rules that overrule the previous rules because someone isn't happy with the spend level.

I understand your concern, but the consequence of this would be the largest holders are disenfranchised of the rights they paid for because you don't like the existing rules any more.

Note, the existing rules do allow you to have more say: buy more Hive and you can vote up the return proposal. This isn't about 1st and 2nd class citizens: it's a stake-weight system "by design". Anyone can buy more stake if they want more influence (or sell it if they want less).

Note: I'm not even that much in favor of stake-weighted systems in general, although its pretty easy to understand why Hive has one (prevention of sybil attacks being one of the reasons). My primary other project is in fact completely reverse in design: equal weighted voting per person. But changing the rules of an existing system is completely different from designing a new one.