I'm seeing two flaws in your argumentation:
a) The way you're arguing makes it seem that the hbdstabelizer funding is sucking up funding that could else benefit new projects.

• Which it isn't true, I don't see any "upcoming" project that is currently missing out. Else, stakeholders can obviously easily push such noteworthy projects above the hbdfunding to make sure they get funded.
• This way we're basically killing two flies with one hit a) short term benefit + b) long term benefit with the leftover.

b) It also makes it seem that it might even be sucking up $ existing projects need.

• But those project have actually been getting much more than what they were needing for a while so they were overfunded (you can argue that they are paid in hbd, but as a fact all proposals are calculated in USD prices by the authors, because that's what pays devs and infra).

The remaining stakeholders could easily push the proposals that had their funding temporarily paused above the limits of the hbdfunding again if they think that those apps needs the extra money.
If you ask me
a) Dapps should be self-sustainable
b) A lot of projects are getting first class salaries for what they're doing from a community fund with very little to show as actual benefit for the ecosystem itself where I take the hbdfunding short term benefit 10x.