I agree it may be necessary to increase the haircut limit, but I think the safest thing is to leave it at 10% as we first observe the operation of the new rules, because I think 10% is so conservative than there's little risk for anything too terrible to happen under the new rules.

In my opinion, it's also not likely for the haircut rule to represent too big a danger for HBD holders: in the potential case where HBD becomes very popular but that still doesn't translate to an increase in Hive, so that the HBD supply starts to approach the haircut level, the HBD holders can relatively quickly unstake and initiate conversions to Hive to avoid suffering "loss of stability".

Because of the above process, I think the most likely result is that the haircut will just function as a cap on the supply of HBD that is likely to be created. Later, if that cap is considered to be too small, and Hive holders want to assume some more risk and allow for a more liberal supply of HBD debt, it's a relatively easy change to make with a hardfork. But I think such a move should definitely be held in reserve until we've confirmed that the basic economics of the new rules play out as expected.

The biggest danger to HBD holders would be an extremely large drop in Hive marketcap while HBD supply was at high level, of course, and this is a possible scenario in the volatile world of crypto. But even then, this would probably only result in a principal loss to a "long term HBD staker" if Hive stays low from that point forward and doesn't later rise above the haircut level (so far, it always has before too long, IIRC).

I think such holders might want to initiate a small withdrawal from savings to trigger an interest rate payment (to mitigate the chance for a potential loss of accumulated interest time as it possible that witnesses might move to lower or entirely eliminate the interest rate during such a period of time as well).

Arguably this would represent the great loss to such a HBD investor: the loss of future interest during the time that the haircut rule gets triggered. And it presupposes that witnesses would terminate the interest payments during that time, which isn't necessarily true, and would probably depend on the actual factors that resulted in the haircut rule being triggered and the anticipated time for the rule to remain in effect.