True but that doesn’t justify overpaying to get back to a start stack.
You keep losing sight that players aren't forced to surrender chips to re-buy -- they can always wait to bust out, just like a normal re-buy, or continue to play short-stacked, just like normal. It's merely an extra option for those who choose to do it.
If you don't see any value, then don't do it. But many others
do see the value in surrendering chips to get a full re-buy stack, without a) giving their opponents more chips (by all-in dumping), and b) waiting on chance to determine when they can re-buy (allowing them to play more hands with a full stack). When (or if) to surrender simply becomes a strategy decision.
Take the example of a 10-handed table of 10K starting stacks (100,000 chips in play). Player A has only 1500 chips remaining, and is deciding between a) to shove at next opportunity trying to double up and re-buy if he busts, or b) surrender and re-buy immediately.
If Player A shoves and loses, he re-buys a new stack of 10,000 chips and has 9.09% of the chips in play (10k/110k), with the prize pool containing 11 buy-ins.
If Player A surrenders and re-buys a new stack of 10,000 chips, he has 9.22% of the chips in play (10000/108500), with the prize pool containing 11 buy-ins.
So it's up to Player A to determine whether or not his chances of turning that T1500 short-stack into something valuable is worth more than the 0.13% equity gain by immediately surrendering, and whether or not his overall chances of winning are improved by immediately getting to play hands with a full stack vs a short stack (few things are worse than getting dealt a monster hand when holding very few chips, especially if you could have had a full stack instead). To many, the decision is pretty clear when the chip stack size is very low, relative to other stack sizes.
Interestingly, the more chips that a player surrenders, the greater the equity gain by surrendering (which is offset and must be balanced by the improved playability of the larger short-stack). Finding that optimum surrender/play-on line is part of the strategy decision.
Having the option to surrender is not a detriment -- it can only work in the favor of short-stacked players.