IMO, it means much more to everyday usage that half of blocks are much faster than 10 minutes (but the average is dragged up to 10 minutes by the long exponential tail).
To be pedantic: 63.2% of blocks are faster than 10 minutes.
Still, the point still stands that increasing block size does nothing to reduce block time or make bitcoin more suitable as a point of sale currency. For this, you need second layer solutions.
Creating bitcoin and then trying to layer value on top of it by hooking it up with stablecoins is not an ideal solution.
That is a problem for people who are using stablecoins, and not for bitcoin. Bitcoin had value long before stablecoins existed. Bitcoin will have value long after the last stablecoin has imploded, as seems to be the trend. I have never once owned a single cent of a stablecoin or ever thought about the value of my bitcoin in terms of stablecoins. If your tie your bitcoin in to some stablecoin and that stablecoin collapses, then that's a problem for you, but bitcoin will continue on unchanged.
That's a minor issue with bitcoin is that someone can make a duplicate copy of it and the only difference between their copy and the real bitcoin is the popularity of one of them.
If you believe that to be the case, then why haven't heavily advertised forks which are bankrolled by centralized parties taken the top spot? There is much bitcoin has over useless forks than its popularity.