I don't agree. Blockchains do not rely on civic duty, they rely on engineering a situation where desirable action is rewarded, and undesirable behavior is made very expensive. This needs to be done by fundamental design, not an appeal to morality.

It's not an appeal to civic duty, but merely that large stakeholders need to recognize where their interests actually lie and act upon them. There are all sorts of ways that people can fail to see or act in their own interest. Short-term thinking, laziness, fear, apprehension, ignorance and even sometimes purely self-destructive behaviour are common ways that people can fail to act in their own interest.

You can't change some rules without losing something fundamental but you certainly can change others. For example, I've suggested that the relative difference in voting power between those with the most SP and the least. Changing the square reward curve to almost linear has been suggested as a way to do this. This is changing the rules while keeping it attractive for investors. At least that's the idea.

I agree with this proposal, but it won't change the need for larger stakeholders to police smaller ones. No rule change will remove that element, although they can make the act of policing easier. There will always be ways for a large stakeholder to be selfish or abusive at the cost of the network as a whole and it requires that those who are heavily invested police such behaviour.