Right now there are two pools have ~>24% of the network hashrate, and three additional pools have ~>10% of the network hashrate. The threshold that I propose prevents any one entity from being able to veto a HF. Do you think that any one person (or an entity) should have the power to veto a HF?
This is the game theory nonsense that was supposed to justify a certain HF. While they might be able to prevent a HF for a while (keep in mind that the miners are able to switch pools) it is in their best interest not do so if everyone agrees with it.
I have looked at the facts and have come to that conclusion. To me, it has always been clear that a serious proposal to HF the network to raise the maximum block size will never be released. Based on what AntPool is saying, they will not support SegWit without a HF, and AntPool will most likely be able to prevent SegWit from activating.
You have looked at nothing relevant. The people that have signed the agreement haven't really voiced themselves much besides Luke-jr, who was trying to gather information as to what would be acceptable in the HF.
This is also why the price has not been moving up even with the reward halving just round the corner.
There was never any guarantee of the price going high (even though it is much higher ATM than late 2015). You only have a bunch of people with primary school knowledge of economics predicting pretty much any random number (
example).