You seem to present that as a contradiction, but the obvious conclusion is that the GP believes Uber keeps an unfair share of the ride fees.
Based on my vague internet research, it appears Uber keeps 20-25% plus various fees, like how credit card settlement charges work, which can add up to 40%+ for some rides.
And the losses are so large that it likely means both raising prices to riders and reducing the net payout to drivers at the same time.
(Not saying I agree or disagree.)
But they should. Perhaps the pay scale is too top heavy. Uber's operational expenses should be trivial (hell, they straight up stole the most expensive bits -- the self-driving car IP). Instead they squeeze the drivers (passing along rate cuts) and riders (surge pricing during shootings, etc) pretty severely.
They can't easily scale these efforts back because the value of the service plummets for all parties if they lose their economy of scale.
Which is hilarious to me. Uber is spending a ton of money, and very little of it trickles down to the people that make Uber possible (the drivers).
L5 self-driving cars will be a game-changer for a while, assuming Uber gets exclusivity from Waymo (which now owns a stake in Uber).
I'm sure there's plenty of analysis of this out there, so I should read some articles.
Drivers aren't going to get more than a few percentage points increase without increasing the price to the end user.