One thing I don't like about high fees is that they discourage commerce if stablecoins happen to be priced too low rather than too high. If you want the ideal coin for commerce, this doesn't work as well, since 50% of the time there are fees and 50% of the time there are not once equilibrium is reached. I agree it might work pretty well if it is mostly seen as a store of value.
I agree high fees will discourage commerce, but I don't see any way around it. However, I don't think high fees will be all that common. The only way to find out is to create the coins and see what happens.
If that volatility risk can be transferred somehow as I described, these coins become much better behaved, both for commerce and for storing value. The "bankruptcy scenario" I described above could fail gracefully into the fee-based system you describe, but during any normal market, you would get nearly perfect stability without any fees.
I don't see how you're going to avoid volatility entirely. Also, I don't get your shareholder proposition either. I think a certain amount of volatility will be necessary to live in a decentralized world. You could remove the volatility completely if you have an issuing authority, but then you have to rely on the issuing authority to do the right thing all of the time. If you're fine with that, just go with USD and the Fed.
