The reason for the proposal system on Hive is the stake having been used to attack the chain. That stake can't be restored in a fork or the chain would still be in an attacked state. The whole point of the fork is to remove the bad actor (much of this was written about a good 13 years ago, but it's dry and boring reading, you might be able to find some of the old videos of Dan Larimer talking through it). To argue their case for getting an airdrop, there would presumably need to be a discussion about attacking the chain. The evidence for what stake voted a single entity into holding multiple witness positions is on this blockchain. A single entity holding multiple witness positions is the definition of an attack on DPoS.
Where's the evidence that reolandp's stake was used in an attack against this chain?
He was told to create a proposal if he wanted to try and get his stake back... his existing actual account. Airdrops to a new account on a new blockchain can't be assumed - especially in cases where stake was used to attack a block chain. They are very different things, but roeland is still doing as asked by creating a proposal.
What is the reason his stake has been restricted? The people who didn't get an airdrop were given a clear reason. Clear rules were created. Those rules were in line with ending the attack. Where are the clear rules for 22.8888, and were they consistently applied to all accounts?