I think it's important to look at things from a zoomed out and longer term perspective. It is good to remember that we are very very early to this protocol. It has been live for only 100 days. It is also important to realize that rewards are simply coming at a slightly reduced rate; look at it like this, the same amount of rewards are being paid out just over a longer time frame. This extends the life and viability of Olympus DAO within the DeFi space. This is good for the protocol. If you own OHM tokens and participate in the protocol, then this is good for you. All you gotta do is stake for slightly longer to get the same amount of rewards that, before, you were going to get in a shorter time frame.
Olympus is designed to capture value. That is what the treasury is, it's a black hole for money, and the longer it exists, the more money it will absorb. The more money the treasury absorbs through bonds, the brighter brighter our horizons become; the bigger the treasury, the further investors (big and small) can see into their future with us, therefore, the further we are able to see as well. Lowering reward rate (as this proposal would do) immediately extends our runway, AND also causes all the money that comes in from here on out to have more extension power.
I'm sorry that your wallet is down right now, but I personally see no adequate reasoning to be against this proposal in your post. It seems mostly based in emotion and that is not the right motivation for altering (or not altering) a protocol. This proposal has come out of a lot of care and thought for this protocol. If it passes, it could (speculative) push some people away, but it will (non-speculative) do numerous beneficial things for the protocol itself. We immediately get an increased runway, and all bonds now extend the runway longer than they previously did. What i'm saying is, I haven't seen any non-speculative reasons for being against this proposal, and I see multiple non-speculative reasons to be in favor of this proposal.