The more I think about it, I'm not sure there is any safety risk. Some highlights (and I'm not recommending anything here, just observing and hypothesizing to try to understand what the real issues are, if any):

Mining is a competitive business. That means there will always be pressure to stay profitable. It pushes miners toward cheaper energy sources and other good things (which bitcoiners often cite), but it also means that miners who can't compete will constantly go out of business, just like in any other sector. This is inevitable, no matter how much money is thrown at miners in the form of commissions or rewards for blocks. The question is, would it be bad for Bitcoin if unprofitable miners went bankrupt?

"Increasing the hash rate" seems to be an oft-quoted expression of Bitcoin's security requirement, but is it really? Adjusting complexity works both ways. When Chinese miners stopped working, was it bad for security?

Centralization ensures efficiency, and so businesses of all kinds tend to optimize around centralization. There is little in the way of centralization in the mining industry. There are concerns that large mining pools are getting too big, leading to too many votes in selecting transactions for a new block. Hence, the V2 layer. However, allowing miners (instead of pools) to choose transactions only means that centralization lines will be drawn around the miners, not the mining pools, which does not stop centralization per se. The question is, is the centralization of mining harmful to Bitcoin? My knowledge is lacking on this, but it seems to me that as long as full nodes verify mined blocks based on their own consensus rules (which are NOT centralized), then who cares if the mining is centralized? Wouldn't nodes reject newly mined blocks if they don't meet network requirements?

In conclusion, at this point it seems to me that the root of any theoretical security problem lies not in the mining fees or centralization, but in the ability of complete nodes to reject blocks that violate Bitcoin neutrality. In other words, new blocks should only be accepted if they conform to the free market principle of including the most valuable transactions. A block that ignores transactions with market value should not be accepted. Again, my knowledge is insufficient, but if full Bitcoin nodes already do this, where is the supposed security problem with centralization? Despite all the concerns about the network, one government can take over the vast majority of mining as a network service without any problem, because the miners have to do what the "people" say with their validation of full nodes, right? (Then at least the government will serve the people the way it should.)