Firefox has implemented the replacement, Global Privacy Control. It has the exact same problems and isn't respected either, except even fewer websites have implementations that respect GPC.
It's not a real solution to the normalised cyberstalking websites practice today, but it's also not entirely useless.
DNT has legal standing in the EU, GPC has theoretical legal standing in the USA, where laws are more geared towards protecting data brokers. Removing a protocol because it doesn't work in the USA despite it being a legal opt-out in the EU is foolish; just send both headers, let local jurisdiction pick the which one is legally binding and which one can be ignored.
GPC has been standardised to never make it extendable beyond "Sec-GPC: 1" so there is no way for it to imply a set of choices in the future, without breaking backwards compatibility. The choices are limited by design.
1. assume the user by default does not want to be tracked and make do-not-track opt-out.
2. have it running for a few years and gradually increase the heat on the discussion that nobody respects it.
If it would've been done this way it would've been newsworthy and maybe would've been considered as something to enforce via regulation (at least in EU).But as it stands do-not-track never had a chance to succeed - I believe that was by intention.
proof is that musk first and only feature added to shitter post purchase fiasco was to detect firefox anti tracking feature and block the user! the fact the most shrewd person in the world acted on it is perfect proof it worked againt his goals (which now we know was to influence elections)
I would say this needs to start with a law, more or less.
In that light removing it might push a few people to apply more protections to their browser and be an overall (if extremely minor) win for privacy.