This is not an argument for this EIP performing full issuance redesign.
If the problem is specifically the risk of entering an unhealthy staking range, then a narrower safeguard could be justified: define a threshold X% (after proper research and modelling for choosing X% and not saying “uh 50% looks nice number, it’s half”) and activate a taper only if staking approaches that range. That would also stop the endless speculation about whether and when staking goes to 50%, 90%, or 100%.
The urgency argument supports an anti-overstaking safeguard; it does not justify urgently changing issuance at 10%, 20%, or today’s staking levels.