I think there are some considerations that are being missed.
There could be a mechanical advantage when turning small pegs, but would it help in practice? If you have to wrap two layers of string on the peg instead of one, there goes your mechanical advantage. I don't want to have to shorten my strings to make this work. It seems like a good idea, but I would have to see it.
I don't think that there is a wear advantage. There might be a torque advantage when tuning, but the force on the peg hole is determined mainly by the string tension. The pressure on the hole is also higher with the small shaft, and this might cause increased wear.
Isn't the usual practice to start with the small end of the conical shaft and work inward as the peg wears and wood is cut? I don't see any reason to change that.
I think it's much more important to ensure that the pegs and holes are exactly round, and tapered correctly, however that may be. If the pegs are perfectly made, they will be easy to tune regardless of diameter.
Hardanger pegs are already small. They have to be, because there are so many of them. The problem isn't the size. The problem is that I have never seen a round peg or a round hole on a Hardanger fiddle, and that's really interesting when you are tuning steel understrings. In addition, the pegs may have been made from softer wood with a non-circular wear pattern. In contrast, I have seen a few violins that actually have round pegs. Not all, but some of them.