I don't understand the connection with #1.
I don't support yield farming. That's just staking with extra spam. So I agree it is a downgrade.
I don't agree whatsoever with #2 and #3 being a downgrade. These are both hot garbage that add minimal to no or even negative value, plus again a lot of spam.
I agree #4 is a valid point, but the system is way overly complex and requires way too much constant babysitting from stakeholders and a turn off to would be investors (I'm going to have to vote 10 times per day?! WTF?!). DHF is a better model.
#5 is offset by reduced selling pressure day after day, year after year as people milk rewards and cash them out. Also, it is conceivably possible that a L2 reward scheme could use L1 stake weighting for voting, in which case the reasons to hold stake would remain essentially the same.
#6 is a mixed bag. Our reputation is not great (possibly optimistic), and sitting on a system that works poorly and clearly discourages potential new investors (they don't see the value in being inflated to generate selling pressure to pay for low-quality content and a stagnant model) without taking action is not a good look. Being willing to evolve a stagnant model that has failed to produce growth is a positive, not a negative.