One of the first is whether someone can opt out of the lease entirely and still occupy the land, excluding others from its utility. The answer to that question, under this proposal, would be no.

If we're being consistent, the answer to that question would be "Only if they can defend it from the previous tier-one owner." The definition of a tier-one owner appears to be "One capable of defending land more effectively than anyone else can attack it," and it hardly makes sense to snapshot the tier-one owners now and declare it to be the final configuration and regard all new tier-one owners as illegitimate.