"are precisely the problem" - by definition, there is no precise-ness to our assumptions about the future. Introducing new incentives for actors in this ecosystem in a hurried and contentious way, and not mitigating the risks of those changes, based upon something we do not "know" will happen is where the market has chosen thus far to draw the line. View quoted note →

Where are people suddenly getting this “hurried and contentious” thing? Paul has been talking about this for well over half of Bitcoin’s existence. I think people are just turning away from any uncomfortable discussion of security budget by saying “well nobody knows”

To be clear my comments about "assuming a single future scenario" is about people who say "Bitcoin has a security budget problem". A hypothetical assumption about a long-dated future state, made from variables that change over time and are adapted to by thinking actors, is not a problem. It is a scenario, and many have ideated ways that scenario might be adjusted to, to user's of Bitcoin's benefit, without any change to the protocol's current construction. And if the response to this is "but fees will be too high to buy coffee on L1", then you've already abandoned your original complaint, and ignored other solutions that already exist.