Does Size Really Matter (regarding Blocksize Limits)?

I notice a distinct trend with cryptocurrencies: they get popular, the blocks start to fill up, fees go up, transactions are slow for awhile, and then people start to use another coin. This pattern seems to happen naturally and it also follows the economic concept of substitute goods: if something of equal value is available for lower price, people will buy/use it instead.

This pattern has happened with BTC, ETH, SOL, etc. SOL network breaks constantly because the engineers are bad. But AFAIK BTC is the only network that broke because of the blocksize limit. My theory is that blocksize limits only matter if they're ridiculously low. If blocksize limits are reasonable like in BCH, high fees and other disincentives like slow confirmations will drive people to another chain before the network hits its capacity limits.

The concept of One Coin to Rule Them All was debunked in the last decade. Anyone actually using crypto knows that having multiple coins is a good thing, and swapping between them isn't difficult. Vendors often accept 5 or even 10 coins, and 3rd party crypto payment solutions can handle this for them easily. And using a single coin can expose one to single point pf failure risks.

Thoughts?