There is one thing that outperforms volume though. Patents. I wonder if we will soon find out some inserted Patents in the BTC Protocol.
Kinda hard to patent widespread practice after the fact. Even if one is successful in that perversion of the patent system, it is hard to bring a meaningful patent case against an amorphous open source community.
New stuff (innovations that may become layered upon bitcoin), and stuff inherently centralized (implemented in hardware manufactured by a legal entity) may be a different story. But that ain't the protocol.
Miners are not there to change the world, nor they are there to make Bitcoin more usable as many erroneously come to think (including you). They are there exclusively to earn profits, as simple as it ever gets. Whether that helps Bitcoin or not is not their business. In other words, if something doesn't work as intended (read the fees are too high), it is not their fault. If it does, it is. The issue is that they are given, or they have taken, too much power which doesn't match the role they (should) play in the grand scheme of things in the Bitcoin world in particular and money world in general. Instead of being purely utilitarian in their purpose, they somehow managed to become exceptionally elitarian in their existence. Now it's high time to put them where their place should be
Should/Shmould. Who are you (that's the collective you - not you specifically) to tell the miners what their 'proper place' is? The rules is the rules, and they are embedded within the protocol. Bitcoin only works at all due to the clever aligning of miner incentives with 'what is good for Bitcoin'. We have a system heretofore considered impossible that is working splendidly due to this balance. Why would we want to force some change upon the miners? Even if we could, it would likely have unforeseeable side effects.