There are two flaws in the argument: > they would need to pay ~$37.50 to move them, which would likely cause them to make fewer transactions Various soft fork

There are two flaws in the argument: > they would need to pay ~$37.50 to move them, which would likely cause them to make fewer transactions Various soft forks to Bitcoin have been proposed that will allow a higher transaction rate. Even without them, people will pay not only $37.50 for a transaction, but even $100 on the busy days. This is because only big transactions will need to happen on layer 1. Smaller transactions can continue on layer 2. Secondly, no, there don't have to be fewer transactions, especially as the technical fixes to the transaction scalability are introduced. Even so, the transaction fees only delay the inevitable, which is the complete stoppage of miner rewards, so the argument is not without merit. Relying on miners to secure the network seems weird.