This would require the FIA and the teams to have the same notion of fair competition. For the richer teams, the ability to compete with what they see as reasonably strong teams, to push boundaries, is the main part of why they're there. Otherwise they'd go to the next series (or sport) which enables this - maybe WEC hypercars, maybe Formula E, maybe their own thing. To not allow this, to them, is unfair competition from the organisers, and taints their series. Their reaction would then be to leave.
Which sounds reasonable as a trade-off to F1 until you realise we've just had a team try to spend $105 m to complete a season and fail, because the actual minimum limit (as spent by Sauber and Toro Rosso) is $110 m. Elsewhere, the only series that's close to this is WEC LMP1, where Toyota spends around this much to win the WEC title. Even that's put off other manufacturers due to price and insufficient road-relevancy compared to Formula E. In the other series and categories I see, it's rare to see more than $40 m spent on a season (and that's typically teams with fleets of cars in a series, like AF Corse sometimes having 6-8 cars in a series and in WEC, at least 4).
The gap between $40 m and $110 m is basically insuperable for a team not owned by a billionaire, and billionaires are now able to find other things to do that work better for their interests. The ceiling height (which I doubt the proposals will do anything but aggravate) isn't necessarily the reason we have only 10 teams - the system not paying out all 13 possible team slots, and the fact that the gap between current non-F1 teams and the backmarkers is the same magnitude as the gap between Haas and Mercedes, are bigger factors.