This really only benefits the audience, though, which means there is little to no incentive on the part of the creator to use RSS.
Most blog readers don't share your perspective, and, unless a creator's audience skews very heavily toward a group that does, it would be hard to say the incentives are aligned in the direction that makes a tangible difference for them to support RSS for their posts.
What sacrifice are you talking about? For instance, Substack supports RSS, even for paid items. They just only include the teaser portion in the feed. The paying customers can click though.
These aren't things users care about, but it's what the publishers care about.
The original model never made too much sense to me: why do I depend on every single website to implement something that I want? If a website doesn't implement it, I just don't get to use my RSS client with it at all? Not very compelling.
You can see the same inconsistency in the finger-pointing that comes up on this topic. RSS benefits us, the audience, yet it's {X,Y,Z}s fault for not implementing it for us. And we need to somehow compel them to do it or something.
Nah, an RSS reader in 2022 should be able to create feeds from websites. There are already solutions here.