The "a transfer" I highlighted is an indication for me that they're indeed talking about a single transfer.
Conversely, the end of that sentence - "from unhosted wallets" - suggests they are talking about multiple transfers, rather than saying "from an unhosted wallet" if they were talking about a single transfer. As you say, it is open to interpretation, but my experience is that generally lawmakers will interpret things in the way that gives them the most power and gives citizens the least freedom.
But with these legislations, even if we can acquire some goods and services, the most basic necessities we are not going to be able to acquire without KYC. Ideally, with a Bitcoin-friendly government, a threshold could be set below which no transaction reporting or KYC would be required, for example $100 (I remember reading this idea from o_e_l_e_o), but as it turns out, it doesn't look like this is going to happen.
I think the initial point I made regarding a lower limit was for tax purposes. In the US, when considering foreign currency then you do not pay capital gains on any transaction below $200. Such a limit would immediately make using and spending bitcoin as a currency far more feasible. Rolling in the reporting requirements to this as well as you suggest would also be beneficial. When considering the travel rule for fiat, the limit is anything up to $3,000, or the equivalent in another currency. I'm not entirely sure what the limit is in the EU, but the report we are linking to here seems to suggest it is 1000 EUR. Fairly ridiculous, all things considered, that there will be a $0 limit for taxing and reporting bitcoin transactions.
The thing is, bitcoin is not going anyway. If the EU wants to be hostile towards it, then the EU will simply fall behind. And in another 20 years when other countries have huge cryptocurrency sectors built on personal freedom and non-stifling regulations, then the EU will have to play catch up. Their loss.