[Cryptography] More efficient and just as secure to sign message hash using Ed25519?

[Allen]

>  So if you hash first, you now have two collision risks whereas before you
only had one. ... Almost certainly the least of your worries in any
real-world application.

I see it basically the same way.  Performing two full hashes of the message
seems to buy only a very small marginal security benefit (maybe something on
the order of 1 additional bit of security in the overall scheme?).  Even if
I thought the additional computational/probabilistic security were needed, I
could probably find a way to use those CPU cycles that would yield a better
payoff (using a stronger curve or a more complicated hash function
perhaps?).  I'm comfortable signing the hash(message) rather than the
message itself.