My initial reaction is that it would be the worst solution, but that more points to the fact that we see the problem differently, have different priorities , and therefore have different solutions, and i think this broadly mirrors the community as a whole.
To me, solving the problem by reducing the functionality of the product is the least optimal solution, because i'm happy to exchange the time needed to fix it for maintaining the max fov.
Reducing the fov is solving the problem in the shortest possible time at the cost of the specs of the product, which is a trade you (and others with similar opinions) are willing to make here and which i would add is a totally valid opinion in the set of possibly valid opinions. And one on which i might fall on a different side in other places. Like if they said they wanted to delay a year to get to 90 hz and had a backer vote i would vote to ship.
It is only by grace of luck that pimax went with a philosophy of trying to maximise the quality of the product in this case, that aligns with my personal opinion. I would speculate that if they had not gotten that 15 mil in investor funding , you would probably be holding the headset in your hands right now and i would be complaining bitterly about them taking the shortest possible route and compromising the fov, because i am buying it for that fov first and foremost.