The main issue is that most of them still are very complex to get fully operational, there is no big consensus among users on "what-to-use-when" and they all require a non-insignificant cost to setup in terms of all the contract transactions needed to get in and out of the chain.
There is no reason to doubt that they be more mature along with ETH2 and that that L1-L2 will complement each other nicely.
The problem comes with attracting such participation, which isn't warranted without that very participation having already been established.
Carts and horses and such.
Also, I said that there are many things yet in the way to facilitate adoption, no need to move the goal-posts.
I never said there were goal-posts... if anything I said they couldn't exist, and even if you could score, you'd get points in the wrong game.
This is akin to saying that it doesn't matter that e.g Brazil has a more advanced banking retail industry compared to the arcane networks from the US because the Brazilian economy is not as big as the US.
This is silly, because not only the two economies can co-exist, there is no technical aspects that stops other chains to adopt PoS as well it also ignores that the value can be migrated from one chain to another.
Increasing throughput in Ethereum would make everything more valuable. Just as an example, people can get their BTC and transform wrap them to use in the ethereum chain. With ETH2, it will be cheaper to wrap BTC and cheaper to use it in transactions.Its utility will be increased.
In terms of utilization, Ethereum already has, exceeding Bitcoin in transactions per day:
And doing so while the average complexity of transactions, which is measured by the number of gas units a transaction consumes, has increased:
https://etherscan.io/chart/gasused
It has also overtaken Bitcoin in the economic demand for its blockspace, with Ethereum miners earning more in fees than Bitcoin miners:
https://coinmetrics.io/charts/#assets=btc,eth_log=false_left...
Seems like a "If they come, we will build it" problem.