Short answer to this: 3/2’s are really important and the game is worse without them.
Netrunner is a really complicated game, both to play and particularly to design and balance. Because of that, removing certain aspects or cards will often have far reaching effects that are way beyond what you might expect.
Let’s look at 3/2’s as an example. I assume that the reason that people, possibly including Damon, would rather they don’t exist is because they’re too powerful and play in to fast advance strategies too much. They presumably think that if you remove them, you’re more likely to get ‘real’ Netrunner with agendas sitting advanced in remotes for a turn.
And that’s true, but doesn’t explore the next step, which is how runners would respond to such a world. If 3/2s didn’t exist and almost all agendas have to be advanced over multiple turns to be scored the ‘correct’ response for a runner deck is to set-up a remote lock, repeatedly take money and not make any aggressive action unless the Corp actually does something. This is not a healthy base state for the game, nor will it lead to enjoyable experiences. You might be able to mitigate some of this issue with traps, defensive upgrades or the like, but they are just plasters trying to staunch the bleeding caused by a poorly designed framework.
When you introduce 3/2s you automatically broaden the scope of your game. Now the Corp can fast advance, they can never advance, they can play a shell game. The runner is forced to be more proactive, because the Corp can score points in a variety of ways, some of which are hard to predict. It’s more interesting for both players.
Obviously there is a limit to how many 3/2s everyone should have access to; 3 to 4 per faction is probably about right. But removing them altogether would not be a good idea.