Why do you assert that it doesn't change the game? Playing without a bonus would almost make it a completely different game strategywise. As for lower the starting point and having the same number of people, that would change how the game goes too. Starting a game with 500 points and 50 people entered would be a lot different than 20000. Your 10% comparision needs to be rethought when it comes to scaling this game. The units of betting will still be 1. The amount of 1's would be 90% less in your example. No factional bets, right? With more people entered, it'd easy to use up a lot of points just hanging in as the field narrows. Check out the "Very First Run" and see how the spread of people is compared to a smaller pool of people at the start. Seems to me if we had started with 2000 points instead of 20000, this First Game would have gone a lot differently than it has. Then there's psychology of what people like to bet when it comes to the actual numbers themselves. Changing the starting values will affect some people's play in unpredictable ways. Maybe not you, but I'd be willing to bet some. Lowering the starting point to 2000 but leaving the bonus at 500, would certainly expose the fallacy of those people that bet 1000 or more in the early rounds too. I'd be willing to try such a game and see how it goes.

As for priorities, I agree with you there and it's been demonstrated often enough. Perhaps with the recent changes having been made to the game, the others ideas will get more attention and are being looked into now. (Previous turns shown and the winners list)