It's a good idea in theory if you can somehow force dividends to some long term vesting strategy to reward long term investors over short term investors.

It's a bad idea in historic practice, given the very origin of the turned out to be awful, something of the root of much short-term-ism and "activist investors" in the first place, "fiduciary duty to the shareholders" phrase was the awful Ford v. Dodge Brothers case where the Dodge Brothers were some of the earliest investors in Ford (as partners and parts dealers for Ford) and went to court to argue that record profits in a particular quarter should not be invested in long-term capital investment (a large new plant) and R&D as Ford was planning to do, but presented as a windfall of a large dividend to shareholders instead. The court agreed with the Dodge Brothers for, er, dodgy reasons, and the clear conflict-of-interest motive from hindsight of the Dodge Brothers "activist investing" in that moment was to notoriously use said dividend windfall to expand their efforts as a Ford competitor (produce more Dodge cars, if you haven't guessed) from Ford's own profits.

It's not a single court case that gets us to where we are today with short-term thinking in Wall Street, but that's such a weird foundational one.