It seems like this is just not the game for you, then. The way Daggerheart works is that when you transition to combat, instead of Initiative the GM just asks the group what they are going to do next. The Fear expense is to break that rule and seize control of the situation. That's a rules issue I see for the start of combat. And I get that there will be GMs who don't like it. I look at it as a rules/gaming element of a narrative game and it works for me. But I also think this sort of thing will cause some GMs to bounce off of the game, especially since I suspect there will be more examples of this in the final rules.
You will end up breaking those rules sooner or later, trust me.
There's always a scenario that works much cooler, or works at all, when you make an exception from rigid meta rules.
And I avoid rules that require inconsistency. I would hate describing such rules as wonderful or exciting given the unstated assumption they would only apply when it is convenient.
I just don't think this will work as stated, meaning without exception. Sure it can work as written on occasion. But in the long run? No, not if you sincerely expect the GM to actually follow them the way you the player has to, even when it is patently foolish to do so.
It would be FAR preferable if the rules were upfront about this, instead of pretending these rules will be followed 100%.
Every rpg rule needs to understand they are subservient to the DMs needs. This is the same reason I loathe (ban/rewrite) silly rules like the Alert feat that promises the player they can never be surprised again. Believe you me, if the adventure works better with a surprise encounter, no feat in the world can come between me and a good story.
Such rules just reveal the rules writer having list track of what's important: helping and enabling the GM. Never controlling or restricting him or her.