This is, of course, true, but financial incentives drive financial decisions, and Hive is a plutocracy that requires only 50.00001% of stake to completely control governance. Generally speaking, folks with the most substantial stake will be those that best attain it, and best manage it, and their decisions when granted unitary control of a financial asset can be counted on to exercise maximal prudence. The first rule of investing is to preserve your capital, and only then to seek to increase it. I observe that Hive management has been exercised to prevent control of governance from being acquired by more capital than extant management can bring to the table by means of presenting the aspect of a poorly performing asset. Being listed only on Upbit, a shrinking user base, and a token declining in value all discourage investment from deep pockets.

They don't prevent unique individuals with significant assets from investing, as you exemplify, but they have to date discouraged investors that could easily buy all the Hive tokens being sold from doing so and seizing control of governance as Sun did Steem. Because the extant Hive management maintain control of governance solely because of their possession of a bare majority of stake there is not another mechanism that can prevent someone or group with more money than they have from taking over governance.

Perhaps there is some other factor I am missing. Can you think of anything else that prevents control of Hive from being purchased by someone or group with deeper pockets than extant management?