Bitcoin is still undergoing development and the two soft forks that happen in Bitcoin development is somehow related to minimizing transaction fee. If we look at the history, Bitcoin first implemented segwit. A bitcoin update that reduces the size of transaction, thus making transaction fee lower. Then comes taproot that further reduce the transaction fee. Before the ordinal issue, Bitcoin transaction are cheap, until someone uses BRC 20 token to congest the network and eventually increase the transaction fee exponentially.
You have to realize how minimal those gains were when we're talking about global adoption.
Even with the extremely small size of brc20 minting that pushed the number of confirmed daily transactions to a record of +600k, it's still on average around half a million, Mcdonald's has 70 million customers a day, just as an example.
If a 2 million tx made out of ordinals ravaged the network this badly, how are we going to deal with a million users daily?
This problem has existed for many years, and Bitcoin is still the #1 coin with no competition. Countless coins claimed to have solved scalability, and they are in dust now.
Maybe because what they fixed was not actually what people want?
The market hs shift is terrible, there is less and less action on blockchain that has a counterpart in the real world, we have insane flows that are basically just people sending coins from and to exchanges, and in the case of altcoins through that defi and "investing" platforms.
The other coins have failed because they failed as an investment tool, what they offered was simply in no demand.
Now, what if Bitcoin hadn't had this problem at all, maybe we would already be further down the road of adoption?