I've gone for the £100 million cap option as I feel £50 million is too big a jump from the current unlimited budget.
Capping it at £100 million would give all the current teams time to start downsizing and preparing for the next cap a year later which could be £50 million.
All those teams waiting to join F1 would just have to wait another year or try and compete now on whatever budget they can afford (up to the £100m cap)
I'm sure there are just as many issues with that approach as there are with going straight in with a low cap.
I went for the £50M cap. (I'd prefer a structured reduction over 3 years to the £40M, but that's not on the list)
To be honest, I don't see the staffing/downsizing as a stumbling block.
Drivers, Team Managers, chief designers and technical directors aside, are the majority of F1 staff going to be on such massive wages? Even if the average salary of this group was as much as £50K, then losing 100 only saves £5m a year. (It then follows that you'd have to lose 1000 of these people to lower your budget from £100M to £50M, and we know that no F1 team employs 1000 people.) So the big spending reductions aren't going to come from wages/staff, which weakens the team's arguments of not being able to reduce spending because it will create unemployment.
More likely, the reduction is to come from teams' not spending multiples of a persons salary in researching 15 different wing profiles, in order to gain 0.1s over a lap at a particular circuit, and for that wing never to be raced again. This is the kind of excessive spending that needs to be curbed, but to encourage that the FIA have to open up the rules some more.