@ Psychomb Thank’s for your message! 
If this is truly indispensable that big pools be advantaged over small, to prevent sibyll attacks, at least we should have good public proofs or evidence of that, and someone who worked on that should easily be able to explain why a formula like the one question 2, could not work. Now I’m waiting for that… (even if I’m really doubting this is really indispensable)
Otherwise it simply means the protocol is needlessly unfair.
Basically every single one of your points here is answered within the recent Cardano Effect podcast on pledge.
You also fail to mention that we will clearly see several operators begin to join together to pledge a competitive stake, this will be something set by the pool operators totally independent of ao. also post-Voltaire Cardano the community will certainly vote on all variables (ao, k,…) so it really does not matter long term what these are set at for shelley mainnet (with obvious discretion to the market conditions observed during the ITN).
Finally I think it’s super misleading to use the RUST ITN build to compare that to the Haskell spec they have been working on/produced several peer-reviewed research papers on since 2017. Anyone reading IOHK’s work on incentives was very well aware of these variables (as well as the obvious point that they will likely be tweaked/changed based on market conditions/community vote).
Basically every single one of your points here is answered within the recent Cardano Effect podcast
pledge.
If you are talking about the video posted above that I listened carefully it addresses 0 of my points. Then maybe you did not understand me.
Voltaire Cardano the community will certainly vote on all variables (ao, k,…
The problem is not the values of a0 and k, but the formula as discussed extensively already. Giving community the ability to change parameters of a possibly bad formula would not help a thing.
That video addresses each of these points you should revisit the specific points made by Duncan + the spreadsheet shared by Lars. Most of your points are moot when you consider these facts.
Not only is the incentives formulas the result of multiple years of peer reviewed RD, your specific points to it have literally been addressed in this thread. You are doing nothing more than throwing wild speculation around at this point, but please continue on.