This is not a convincing argument. If a dating site can't get people to match, they're likely to stop using it, just like any other product/service you pay for that doesn't work.

The user won't leave simply because the product doesn't work; they'll leave if they believe it won't work. For dating apps, tricking users is more profitable than trying to match them. Hence all the psychological warfare: fake profiles, new account boosts, fake likes, blurred out likes, paid boosts, swipe stack interface, etc. etc.

> If a dating site can't get people to match, they're likely to stop using it

And if it succeeds in getting people to match, they definitely stop using it.

"Likely to stop using it" is the better outcome for them in terms of customer retention

Most relationships don't last forever; people come back to what they know worked before.

Yeah I think this is the missing part. Even if enshittification is more profitable, people should still be able to just change services to a better one.

Change to what? Another match.com-owned service?

Yeah that's the part I haven't figured out. Why isn't there a offering for the market demand for something like old OKCupid? A dating site doesn't seem like an enterprise that needs a lot of startup capital or anything.

Casinos are very profitable.

A casino with no physical upkeep ?

Also you'll be acquired by Match.com

Unless you have competition.