There's far too many moving parts and degrees-of-freedom for there to be some sort tightly constrained mathematical relationship between minute changes in the economic weight and the attacker's loss or profit.
The Medium post that was cited explains some of the scenarios where your presumption fails.
And there are an unbounded many such scenarios.
The entropy even just on earth is not so tightly constrained as you seem to presume.
I agree that there are a lot of moving parts. I disagree that attacking the network is the most efficient way to profit. It is unlikely that you can prove your argument one way or another, and vast generalizations are not convincing.
Did you see @anonymint's face while participating in discussions with him in 2013? What shade of blue was it? Purplish, lavenderish, cerulean, or cobalt?
Why do you react so strongly to such mild characterizations? Take a chill pill, for once.
I'm sorry but you'll need to understand the rigor of Byzantine fault tolerance and stop handwaving with ad hoc descriptions.
Point to the mathematical proof of your system, otherwise you're just trolling.
Bitcoin BFT requires the safety of the consensus result, regardless of adversary. The Decrits design (and presumably others that you've reviewed) eschews this requirement in favor of a non-automatic consensus in the face of adversaries. Since lack of safety can be proven (by a lack of validators' signatures), a node can't be convinced by an adversary that the network is correct and can therefore refrain from making decisions. With BFT, the network can never be proven safe or unsafe.
Multiple partial orders are ambiguous due to network asynchrony.
That is fundamental INVIOLABLE finding of the FLP theorem from the 1980s That's the entire reason a total ordering is required in these consensus system.
BFT assumes network synchrony. Every usable consensus system has to, to some degree. The FLP theorem can not apply. This is inviolable.