Which doesn't solve much because who then controls the spending? And in addition the spending would have to be audited and controlled in some manner that's equitable for both parties.

For example, a defense lawyer could offer reduced hourly rates but include a bonus payment at the end to skew the 1:1 comparison.

In addition, party A can affect the spending of party B, which is part of what's being complained about. Because motions filed by party A can cause party B's costs to rise significantly to the point where their operation is hindered. So it most likely then becomes a race to the top, which once again will benefit the party with the larger war chest up until all assets are used up.

A set percentage of assets would feel better in my opinion, though in extreme cases it would probably still be a pretty penny.