Respectfully, you could not be more incorrect. Whilst scale for...

Respectfully, you could not be more incorrect. Whilst scale for the sake of scale is bad for any business, royalty companies essentially buy financial instruments, the value of which is a function of price they pay, and their own cost of capital. Accretive scale is universally linked to cost of capital (look at the debt cost of say Franco Nevada - 1-2% vs some of the juniors who pay 10%) - this is all scale and asset quality. I suggest you read up on the plethora of TSX and UK listed royalty companies, almost every one will inevitably have a slide showing the relationship between P/NAV and Market Cap (scale).
The quality of the asset is only one aspect of the equation, what matters just as much is the price paid - no shareholder value is created by overpaying for amazing quality assets. MAC was vended into DRR at near full value, meaning the return on this transaction is low, meaning that further acquisitions can well be accretive and add value to the shareholder wealth.
Finally, again i'd suggest looking to peers in the space. Using sensible levels of leverage is entirely normal, and indeed increases the value of equity if done properly. Almost every royalty company employs some level of leverage, albeit royalty companies are typically levered far lower than traditional miners.
Each to their own, but I think you fundamentally don't understand the company or industry you are invested in. The bigger issue here is the lack of traction the company seems to have in identifying acquisitions despite having the scale, cashflow and capital to be more aggressive.