Everything has unintended consequences. That shouldn't stop change. Especially considering that the current situation is flawed and already has many unintended consequences.

True, everything has unintended consequences. Some are worse than others, though. And some unintended consequences can be worse than the current situation, even when the current situation is flawed.

You're falling for the "politician's syllogism": Something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done. But it's called a syllogism because it's flawed logic. The worse the situation, the more important that we do something that actually helps, not just some random something.

The application of brilliant mathematical and legal minds to gaming the system will be a great intellectual opportunity if rather perverse at the same time.

We should simulate it to research it.

The models we simulate from will probably be politically charged. However, economics itself is highly political, you could at least possibly see the biases and assumptions in the models.

This would probably be the way.

I'm especially interested to see how this would affect funding for startups. What types of exits would be possible? Would investors be willing to fund in this environment. The net effect might (I say might, because I really don't know) be to actually cement big companies' hold on things because it may prevent potential challengers from even getting started.