I don't think this is even true. I know the stats you're talking about on posters vs lurkers, but that's orthogonal to blue checks. I can't imagine there was a high percentage of blue checks that got one via being notable on Twitter itself.
Ex: Can you name anyone on tiktok you'd have considered notable before the app blew up? Yet it is the hottest social media platform out there. These people are largely replaceable.
I don't think you are giving enough credit to TikTok here. TikTok was able to break into the space using algorithmic discovery; they didn't need to spend a ton on content and were able to surface content people want to watch.
That said, verification came out in 2009, three years after the launch of Twitter itself.
I might have been missing the point of your post though. I thought it was saying that you want the elites whereas I'm saying they don't really matter if you can make discoverability on your platform decent.
This is strange; the "elites"* in this case create the content. You want the "elites" on the platform otherwise your lurkers, who make up 90% of the DAU will have nothing to read.
The benefit is murky here; blue checks were a proxy for status, "democratizing" blue checks doesn't democratize status. No one is anymore inclined to follow me because I bought a blue check like Kim Kardashian.
* I use "elites" here to match the language, but I think calling Twitter bluechecks "elites" is most laughable, crybaby label perpetuated by a CEO who needs to be liked by everybody.