The AGPLv3 protects freedoms - the freedoms of the users and recipients of the Software and the License, including other developers. If you combine an Open Source license with the Commons Clause, that is no longer Open Source software, in my view. It's source-available, which is completely different. If a developer adds a Commons Clause to their Open Source license, they have removed freedoms more than any Open Source license ever could.
If you look at the OSI's Open Source Definition[0] it states:
> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software [...]
That is completely incompatible with the Commons Clause and others who try to restrict commercial use.
> This article contains the biggest confirmations I've seen of my long-held stance that the AGPLv3 was never meant to prevent commercial use
Of course the AGPLv3 was not meant to prevent commercial use. It's an Open Source license - a requirement of such a license is that it must permit commercial use!
The AGPLv3 is very easy to comply with, it's just that so many are unwilling to do so, so people come away thinking the AGPLv3 was meant to prevent commercial use.
I'd recommend this article[1] which talks about this and several other the falsehoods people have come to believe about the AGPLv3.
[0] https://opensource.org/osd
[1] https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html