Would you be using structures less, or would you be using certain structures less?
Perhaps then owners would be relying on their name more. Now all of a sudden you’ve got a very good reason for choosing one citadel owner over another. In the case of something like a market, clone bay, etc, the owner has increased income because they’re known to defend their structures.
But it should still be fairly manageable. Don’t stockpile stuff in structures you don’t use often (so you can see when the go to low power) or really trust the owner of (so you can be sure it is fuelled even if you are not there to check). Chances are it will not be in low power for the first time and be when it is under attack at the same time. Then just move your stuff to a structure that is fuelled.
Probably all.
Very few (and i mean VERY few) structures in high sec have proved to be reliable. It’s hard enough finding a good home. And tipping the balance in favour of those that are will concentrate more wealth into to big groups.
Which you only see after its happened 
Highsec still has stations, so that does solve that problem (at least for now, who knows what CCP’s plans are for HS stations). Your assets are more than safe there.
As citadels offer perks over stations (lower transaction fees for example) I’d view it as a risk/reward scenario for using their services. Something like a clone is unaffected by these changes cause they’ll die anyways.
There’s never a shortage of upstarts that want to try and break into a market. It may well be that big groups squabble amongst each other over lucrative ones (Perimeter) and simply don’t care about the smaller ones.
Edit: Sorry I suck at quoting today.
I’d still use them for refining, maybe short industry jobs, some market orders i suppose. But i would never house anything of any real value in them or long industry jobs.
The only markets that don’t fail are the ones next to hubs owned by what i assume are subsidiaries of null blocks. I’ve yet to find a engineering complex that hasn’t failed and the costs benefits for using them are often less than the index cost savings of quiet systems.
If this change went through, the first thing I’d do is move out.
I expect the null blocs are very much at play there. When you consider the monthly revenue potential that the IChooseYou citadels have (pretty sure I spend at least 50m a day there on average just on brokerage fees for some hobby trading), large groups would be foolish to not control them. Honestly, I’m surprised that a large null bloc doesn’t have their name on it.
In concept then, what if the bonuses went up? We’re talking about a clear increase in risk, so would an increase in reward keep you inclined to use them?
It would expand what i consider acceptable risk. But even with silly amounts of rewards, i doubt i would start a month long job with a pricey bpo.
Structure gets decced and blockaded. And when it runs out fuel my bpo becomes a loot drop. All which can happen without me being notified. And i don’t really keep an eye on the structure’s i put long jobs into.
Perhaps this is where the proposal can be modified. Fuel levels/war dec notifications where i have offices/jobs. Doesn’t have to be the exact fuel levels. Think like worm holes;
This I like. A lot. It rewards an active player with a great deal of time to evac their assets. I know nothing about how indy works, but if you end up in a reinforced structure I’d want some way for you to unlock your currently committed resources and evac them.
I approve of the op
Also CCPlease stop deleting my comments just because some people have thin skin 
Kthxbai
You can cancel the job and retrieve the bpo but not the materials.
Well, in light of the “removal” of asset safety, I’d likely want to see the materials recovered too. No reason to punish an active player maintaining their stuff.
Either that… or just make it so that only stuff in hangars is exempted from asset safety… hmm.
If a structure is destroyed with an active job materials are lost. It’s the norm. So i don’t mind that.
But a heads up so i can bail out with the researched capital bpo is what I’m really looking for.
And there’s my new learned thing for the day!
I agree, any available info that will help you make informed decisions to protect your assets is well deserved.
This places “asset safety” more in the player’s hands and less as a safety net with which CCP holds our hands to keep us from getting a booboo.
Oh and of course any change in access to a structure defers assets to asset safety.
Hmm… only in HS, possibly lowsec. NS stations you could easily get locked out of your assets. I viewed that as an interesting feature, and one that really incentivized taking stations.
The alternative is again, some kind of warning that I’m going to be locked out so i can grab my stuff.
Hmm… asset safety for lockout in HS, warning in lowsec, and “■■■■ you” for NS? Feels like an appropriate transition to me.
I put my stuff in a fueled structure.
I go away for 3 days.
Owner pulls fuel, gets his friends to blow the structure up, I lose all my stuff now. (Ok, highsec this takes I think it’s 6.5 days minimum, but same applies).
Asset safety has to stay as a free service otherwise Citadels become a joke for leaving stuff in just like it was considered the height of stupidity to ever keep anything in a POS (WH space excluded where you had to keep it, and a few things with active jobs, which already drop).
Game mandated blockades would also massively shift the field in the attackers advantage since there is no way you could pick what a ship was actually dropping off, so it suddenly blocks all neutrals from the structure. Easy way to kill a market hub without ever having to actually blow it up, just continually disrupt trade at it till people move.
So no to both, they both wreck citadels.
Starting to stretch now with the “okay then they can…” stuff but it’d be easy to make depositing fuel be a one way operation. Once you put the fuel in, it’s in and committed to the service it was given to.