The problem is if many more people want to self custody but can't under that fee scenario. If they choose not to or fail to do the work that's a different matter altogether.
Discussion
That's a big "if".
Most people have no reason to self custody because they have no need to spend coins.
Everything they want to spend money on is produced by the Fiat Dominion. There's nothing they want to buy that requires payment in Bitcoin. And so they only care about number go up, and the ability to off-ramp into fiat.
Thus, they are better off with a financial instrument that is linked to the price of Bitcoin because they are guaranteed to have an off ramp into the real Fiat economy that produces all the stuff.
And so we're on a direct track to a paper bitcoin market just like we ended up with a paper gold market.
Unless Bitcoiners actually start producing goods and services more efficiently than Fiat companies, we have no need for Bitcoin to scale.
This is also why governments and bankers aren't terribly concerned yet, they don't just print money for free, they also gate keep the global economy.
I think people miss the generational aspect of this and are only looking at their normies around then.
What about the next generation of bitcoiners, what about generations yet born.
They will want to and will want to self custody, if we fail to ensure that is a practical option we will have failed them.
I’d factor in that Bitcoin/LN as a payment network is more efficient than the legacy system. Businesses might start to prefer Bitcoin not just for lower fees, but for reliability, that is to reduce counterparty risk. Parker Lewis has been talking about that on podcasts recently, about SVB and making payroll during bank collapses.
Also TBF, Saylor has a good point, the TAM for SoV is in the hundreds of trillions, whereas the TAM for MoE is several trillion. How much the latter is kneecapped by the 1970s rails we still use, I’m not sure.