While I do think "enshittification" is a thing, I think it's also the fear of becoming "stale" that leads platforms to eventually overcompensate, aliening its users and potentially dying off. In my opinion, the life cycle of a platform looks like:

1. Platform is created with a strong vision in mind.

2. Platform gains popularity, adding new features. Many will die here, but the most successful projects will create features that positively supplement the core vision. There is a lot of positivity amongst its userbase.

3. Platform eventually becomes one of the leaders amongst its particular niche, typically new features begin to slow down as the platform reaches its ideal feature set and all the low hanging fruit is gone.

4. The platform is no longer causing disruption in the space, but is now the status quo. New competitors or clones will pop up trying to get a piece of the pie, but the network effect keeps users on the platform

5. Despite having an ideal feature set, platforms don't want to completely stop development, so new features continue to come in, but are more and more misaligned to the original vision. UI changes, incorporating clever features from its competitors, or trying to chase the trends in the tech space (NFTs, AI, etc)

6. Users are more and more alienated, but are willing to remain with the platform until a competitor arrives that is viewed to be worth the trouble to switch. As the network effect kept users on the platform, it also opens a floodgate as users quickly switch away.

7. The platform languishes in relative obscurity before being bought out and left in a zombie state.

I think there are quite a few established platforms that remain in stage 5 or so. There's lots of criticism of Facebook, Twitter, Discord, etc. but everyone continues to use them because of the value they feel from other users using the platform. It's only once people leave for greener pastures that they die out (just look at the rise and fall of chat apps like AIM, MSN, Skype, etc. over time).