what "deal"? what are you referring to as if some scripture exists re our duty of care obligations? at what point is putting the entire bitcoin economy's well being at stake not acceptable to you?
i don't believe duty of care implies the necessity to protect specifically irresponsible and unsafe behavior that can/will harm other people. it seems like you'd rather see bitcoin burned to the ground before budging on this. is that the case?
The protocol I suggested above, is safe and secure and a very good compromise saving everybody without taking rough measures against people who miss deadlines. You need to take another look at and sleep on it, imo.
I don't believe in antagonistic conflicts of interests between users but we all need to respect the code and destroying coins is not part of the code. I understand for exposed public keys there is no choice and should put the safety of the whole ecosystem first, but for unexposed ones, I see no justification for taking rough actions just because they are easier to implement.