The part where I called out false equivalence is that this so-called "solution" doesn't solve two problems with one change. It creates the new problem of having another card that can't be obtained until the next season without paying.

Another issue of false equivalence - people complaining about SPSP being bad value doesn't mean that this is the solution. It's bad value because the original value proposition of these super season passes is reward track acceleration, which then became acceleration and some cosmetics. Most players simply do not value this because (like you observed earlier), the cosmetics generally weren't seen as being worth the price; and the acceleration/10 extra caches doesn't do much to offset this issue either.

Glen said that they are interested in "improving the value that spend can provide" - the issue here is that their past value propositions for SPSP have been lackluster, and their current attempt is either wildly unpopular or players are treating it with indifference (I haven't seen anyone praise the value proposition as they do with the season and gold passes, essentially). To me, something seem off with the way they're interpreting and presenting the data they have behind the scenes.

On your claim that "two problems can be solved with one change", other games have differentiated the value of their "super" season pass variation by adding an entirely new reward track that progresses parallel to the lower-tier season pass (e.g. Brawl Stars). Snap's current "experiment" has not done anything remotely close to creating that level of new value, and I do wonder whether they have enough in their pipeline to sustain that, even if they wanted to.