What strikes me is that there’s an angle which used to get covered, but no longer is. Historically by CCP’s product level.
Base concept: emergent behaviour.
Effort and exposure breeds connection, continuity, commitment.
Effort also costs, obviously, but this is where the group dynamic provides the social construct. This doesn’t just offset cost and perception issues, it also functions as a filter mechanism.
All of this is basic social psychology and economic psychology - yes these are actually well established fields of study
Huge footprints in game design and enterprise management on top as well 
Don’t take it from me, plenty material and information to find, it’s not rocket science.
Yet I see CCP make a decision to decrease effort / exposure mechanisms right at the entry points to the dynamic / game / product.
Now one might say that this is a niche focus, low key aimed at facilitation. Sure, I can recognise this. But it is not without consequence. It is also indicative of altered priorities.
Irregardless of the functional model of EVE in place now or later, emergent behaviour is trend shaping at entry points to human dynamics, both real and virtual. What you expose a child to, for example, is formative throughout development curves.
How smart is it to start shaping player generations which are provided with less stimuli for effort / exposure (individual level, there’s also the group level focus but that would end up scaring readers), with these and other changes over time.
It is tough for me to say it, but this kind of choice shape is indicative of a product level doing their best to tackle a signal, but within boundaries set by directives. Which makes it a choice point on a decision slope.
Less effort / exposure stimuli in one commercial ops theory (one popular in the gaming industry, mostly because my old sector - venture capital development - did the groundwork for the belief structure) provides easier and lower cost options for guided correlation between metrics and results. All the others demonstrate well established reality checks on this. You get customers which compensate more (nice)
but commit less and connect less. That’s just on an individual level.
This makes for one of those debates over short term goals with best intentions and tricky boundaries versus long term sustainability and reward.
In short: over time this will turn out to have been one small but significant step diminishing the value placed on emergent behaviour. This is a progression path of (product level) unintended consequences of changing the demographics, the user type distribution and the reservoir of customer willingness to engage and keep engaging in spite of real and perception issues.
Sure, it’s a small behavioural change. Here’s a bit of science paraphrased, human behaviour is like EVE’s butterfly.
EVE is life because it is hard. Tweaking triggers carries complex medium to long term risks to root functionality. I would have suggested different doors.