That is not relevant in the least. It will make it better than it is now.
We need improvements. Before we hit $100+ fees would be nice.
Why does BTC need improvements? If it is digital gold -- designed to be held and not spent -- then high fees that make it more difficult to use could be seen as a feature. Plus small blocks make it easier to run full nodes, which is important to many people.
It does bother me that someone as (I think?) intelligent as you can only see this problem in 1 dimension and black and white...
That is assuming the above quote is sarcasm, and not a sudden change of heart or a hacked account.
By the way, I do not think bitcoin is/will be only a store of value... likely many of us do not. Also it is a straw man to assume small blockers want "no improvements". We want different ones from BCash.
It will be interesting to watch BTC development move forward. There was a huge portion of the community pushing for bigger blocks who have now shifted there holdings towards BCH. These people will now support keeping BTC crippled at 1 MB, as they believe that shifting value from BTC -> BCH is now the best solution. So we have a situation where both small-blockers will be pushing for no block size limit increase AND big-bockers (like me) will also be pushing for no block size limit increase. So I think it will be difficult for BTC to scale if Lightning Network (LN) doesn't work out as planned.
Of course, if your of the view that use cases besides "holding" aren't important, then BTC is fine as is.