Before I go down this road, I want to make clear that I’m against the idea of requiring those declaring war to have a structure at all, so I doubt we will see eye to eye in this matter.
The thing you can’t change about the wardec system is that the aggressor gets to choose to go to war or not, and this sole advantage will see people complain in perpetuity about a lack of balance.
Whoever is starting the fight is going to be fairly confident they can win, and thus a perceived inequality likely exists for nearly all wars when they are declared.
The mechanics of war, though, favor the defender. If there are two equal sides before war is declared, then after the declaration, the aggressor is down 50 million isk. The aggressor is stuck with whoever is in his corporation or alliance. The defender may call in one alliance or corporation to join the war as an ally for free, and several more for an increasing fee. In this battle of equals, the defender has a strong advantage, thus I think the tools favor the defender as things stand today.
If the aggressor can commit any hardware to threaten the defender, the defender can threaten that hardware, if they so choose. If the defender decides to field a juicy target during the war, well… That might not have been the best idea if they didn’t have the force to secure that asset.
In my experience, a force that can’t think of anything to do but throw up it’s hands for a week under the old system probably won’t have the instinct to create a fleet to fight the enemy on their home turf, either, even if they know where it is. Those who can endure for a week of war tend to refrain from complaints. Those are the general trends I observe.
I grant you there are exceptions, and that you may be exceptional, but when designing systems, we should pay attention to the general state of affairs instead of the outliers that exist within that state. People who are dissatisfied now will remain dissatisfied so long as a war can be declared on them by someone who thinks they can win.