The gist is that you will not be able to move the needle with any effectiveness. Reduce the federal budget by 30% by force of will, or what? This is "first, convert 1kg lead to 1kg gold" level thinking.
I agree. That's what I mean by "it seems to be more for you guys about insider trading than about skin in the game".
Edit: I think I understood it. You mean that broad, "macro-like" allocation would prohibit shenanigans with assets in narrower domains, like for example when a congressman successfully pushes a particular drugs-related law that has very big impact on a some particular pharma company. It is more realistic that they can change a single paragraph in some act than they can throw out 30% of the federal budget to "finally start paying back our enormous national debt".
You can also jack up taxes and start paying off govt debt instead of spending it on something new. Would have similar effects.
If you think I'm wrong please write why or post a link with some economic thought, would be curious to read.