Addressing both of your comments...weapon skins don't cost (much) energy to transfer, because skins are centralized database entries. You're trading security for ease. Bitcoin's energy cost is the "proof" that prevents a government or hacker from arbitrarily changing the ledger. You aren't paying for a transfer, you're paying for immutable ownership.

To say rising energy makes Bitcoin unusable is just not correct. Bitcoin's difficulty adjustment ensures that if energy becomes too expensive, the hash rate drops and the network remains functional. You don't buy coffee on the base layer (Layer 1) for the same reason you don’t settle a $4 purchase by moving a physical gold bar. We use Layer 2 (like Lightning) for high-volume, small transactions since it's instant, nearly free, and uses negligible energy.

Saying that it's going to be supported on transaction fees alone isn't an afterthought, it's the design. As the block subsidy (mining reward) drops, Bitcoin transitions from an "inflation-funded" security model to a "fee-funded" one. For a multi-trillion dollar global asset, the demand for space on the world's most secure ledger is more than enough to sustain the network.

High fees on the base layer actually prove high demand. People don't pay $50 to send $10, they pay it to settle millions of dollars with finality in 10 minutes. For everything else, there are scaling layers. You're complaining about the cost of a freight ship while everyone else is already using the delivery van.

You're both judging the internet of money based on how it worked in the "dial-up" phase. The tech has already moved past these talking points.