I don't think this analysis is correct. Imagine Chrome started charging small amounts of bitcoin for each HTTP request but Firefox still allowed free access. I

I don't think this analysis is correct. Imagine Chrome started charging small amounts of bitcoin for each HTTP request but Firefox still allowed free access. I don't think you'd say "I'm now incentivized to use Chrome because I have to have an artificial scarce resource." ISPs can basically get all the IPv6 resources they need, but IPv4 addresses are becoming scarce and costly. Amazon just spent a lot of money to get more IPv4 addresses: that's cost, not profit. If Amazon owned all the addresses and they were making great profits as a monopoly seller, this would indeed be an incentive not to move to IPv6. Instead, it's really just driving up people's costs. Adoption is slow because the extra costs of IPv4 addresses are still smaller than the costs of really getting every piece of infrastructure and software working correctly with IPv6. We're not that far away, but there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem until we're close enough that people can start to turn off IPv4 and effectively force stragglers to adopt.