While I agree with the premise of your concern, I respectfully don't think it holds merit. Here's why:
Should the $100, $250, and $500 all-in reservations prior to 10,000 be prioritized over later $1000 all-in deposits?
Should the $100, $250, and $500 all-in reservations prior to 20,000 be prioritized over later $1000 all-in deposits?
Should the $100, $250, and $500 all-in reservations prior to 30,000 be prioritized over later $1000 all-in deposits?
Should the $100, $250, and $500 all-in reservations prior to 40,000 be prioritized over later $1000 all-in deposits?
Should the $100, $250, and $500 all-in reservations prior to 50,000 be prioritized over later $1000 all-in deposits?
Should the $100, $250, and $500 all-in reservations prior to 60,000 be prioritized over later $1000 all-in deposits?
Should the $100, $250, and $500 all-in reservations prior to 65,000 be prioritized over later $1000 all-in deposits?
Should the $100, $250, and $500 all-in reservations prior to xx,000 be prioritized over later $1000 all-in deposits?
Obviously everyone desires to be prioritized as an early adopter or hardcore believer or true supporter or what have you. But we are all in this together, and I believe there won't be any unique delineation or demarcation line drawn between pre-65,000 and post-65,000, on the premise that it hasn't been done yet. EM has held strong on the concept of $1000 before $500 before $250 before $100, and All-In's before Want-In's, all throughout this journey, as I understand it. I'm not personally opposed to drawing a line in the sand somewhere and providing preferential treatment to earlier adopters, even if that involves prioritizing 'lesser' dollar-figure all-in reservation holders ahead of me. But that precedent hasn't been set by EM yet. Cheers!