I've been pointing this out for maybe 5 years now, within the Czech community and beyond. I never got an answer that would logically explain it - something that would give me confidence the transition from block subsidy to fees will actually work. On the contrary, as years pass, I see fewer and fewer reasons why it should happen at all. I think the key is the real use of Bitcoin blockspace. Satoshi couldn't foresee how the Bitcoin community would evolve. He anticipated ever-increasing interest in using the blockspace. He assumed Bitcoiners would lead this new segment of decentralized finance, not stand in opposition to it. He hoped it wouldn't become just a religious cult and an extension of the current system, but a real driving force helping us get rid of banks and create something completely new. If that had happened, maybe fees would be increasing. Maybe it would make sense. I really don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but I wonder if the finite supply isn't just a test. Maybe Satoshi knew the only way for the current system to co-opt Bitcoin is to turn it into a speculative tool and divide it tribalistically. And maybe the 21 million cap is a self-destruct fuse - designed to automatically destroy Bitcoin if that's what it becomes. If nobody actually wants to use the blockspace, if it's just a number-go-up tribal asset, then the security budget collapses when the subsidy ends. The system self-destructs. Maybe that's not a bug.