It's not ridiculous. I'm personally an investor having voluntarily powered back up a large amount of my stake (I dont have a number off hand but I suspect hundreds of thousands of STEEM, certainly >100K). I do not like tinkering generally as I find it to often be counterproductive as the law of unintended consequences is a strong consideration. I'm less inclined to invest in a platform that engages in it. I want my decision as an investor to choose to invest in a platform with certain properties to be respected, especially when my investment is locked-in for two years. I also don't want to discourage participation by future investors who won't know what they are buying (and expected to lock-into) when the platform has a reputation for changing out from under them.

This does not rule out any changes (rarely) if an excellent case can be made for them, but damaging stability and undermining my investment decisions retroactively mean that they start out with two strikes against them always.

The question of price doesn't really imply much. I recently saw a list of some cryptos that have had >90% declines (including some multiple times) and it isn't uncommon at all. Add to that more specific observation of the fact that very limited supply (due to locking) meant that the pump in Steem was probably much higher and less sustainable than even other crypto pumps and the whole "decline from $4" story doesn't hold much water with me.

If you do not like this platform you are absolutely free to not invest in it. One of the great thing about mostly-unregulated markets is that competition thrives. There are thousands of blockchains to choose from if you don't like how this one works.