You are absolutely right. My concerns are just based on the fact I consider your approach zoomed in way too far.

Firstly, malicious DV needs a formal definition. I call my DVs malicious because the intent to defund DVed accounts is obvious. Lots of confusion can arise simply by people having four possible combinations of labeling my/DACH DV as malicious or not.

the malicious downvoter, intent on abusing another accountholder, can do so ad infinitum because it costs them nothing

This is the only statement I disagree with. My malicious DVs demonstrate there is a limit to the abuse I can put on DACH.

Large or small is only relevant in comparison of two sides. It does not work in vacuum. Noone is larger than Hive.

This is not account-vs-account thing. It is community-vs-account that can be easily extended to community-vs-community. There is a long list of accounts that publicly exclaimed their side. Anyone wishing to pick my side can downvote them. It helps much more than upvoting into bottomless holes.

I do not care how many battles (zero rewards posts) I have to lose before winning the war.

Wars are costly. Quick and early is less costly than appeasement.