If CF does in fact take this approach then they will essentially undermined the entire concept of the K parameter.
Maybe CF should read this blog post by Aggelos again: https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2020/11/13/the-general-perspective-on-staking-in-cardano/
In particular this quote:
Do not engage in pool splitting unless you can saturate a pool completely with your stake. If you are a whale (relative stake > 1/k) you can create multiple pools – but you should keep your leverage as close to 1 as possible or less. Pool splitting that increases your leverage hurts the delegators’ rewards, and more importantly, it hurts the decentralization of the Cardano ecosystem, which is detrimental to everyone.
Cardano’s non-slashing, liquid staking, design depends a lot on the social engagement of the community. It is very clear to the Cardano community that the K parameter is supposed to represent the maximum size of any operator’s single pool. It is also very clear that the design architects had this view when they designed the protocol. The community has frowned upon multi-pool operators that have not saturated their pools with their own stake because they have been undermining this aspect of the protocol. The community has been attempting to use social consensus to persuade these multi-pool operators to reform their ways.
If Cardano Foundation (CF) thinks pools should have larger saturation limits then they should come out and explicitly say so. If this is CF’s belief then they must also believe that the K parameter should be reduced. Maybe back to 250 or even lower?
Cardano Foundation: Come out and say what you think the K parameter should be set to.
Don’t destroy the community’s understanding of the meaning of the K parameter by being two-faced.