In the real market-- since shorts are borrowing the stocks (and therefore pay interest on that) they also have to pay any dividends that are received back to the stock owner. If you are making a statement that no one will short because it is a bad deal, then you will have to explain why there are so many shorters in the real marketplace, despite the disadvantage you perceive?
This is not really an apples to apples comparison.
I'm not going to get into the monetary policies that promote borrowing vast sums of money to gamble on the market.
shorting is much more important to a bitasset than it is to a stock. Since all bitassets require someone to be short to even exist. Shorts and longs must be balanced.
I am sure some people will short specific bitstocks even if they are required to pay dividends. I don't think many will, and this will lead to a very shallow market.
Balancing the incentives between shorts and longs is very important. I think we would be better off with a simple model that doesn't attempt to price in dividends. I could very well be wrong.
I do think that adjusting the amount of stock a market pegged asset represents is an elegant solution that if done properly could be really neat.