Would no open source LTS for Qt shrink its user base?

It was last year(2020). Qt announced that it won't provide LTS to its open source editions.
https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-offering-changes-2020

And this year(2021), at March 4th, Qt 5.15.3, the first LTS only for commercial users is released.
https://www.qt.io/blog/commercial-lts-qt-5.15.3-released

Of course the replies for this post are under flame war from open source edition users. They say that Qt user base will shrink, the company has started the first nailing to its coffin, ...... and such. Well, the blog evokes flame war from time to time so I'm just watching it with my popcorn.......

But let's sit down and think. Would the policy of "LTS for commercial clients only" shrink the general user base for Qt? In my thought, it's absolute NO. Let me ask you one question to make it clear.

"OK. Say, let's not use Qt. Then what will we use?"

As far as I know, there's no such library which can fully replace Qt in 1 on 1 way. Some features would be able to be replaced, but Qt-only features are not replicable at all(hey, if you think you can replace Qt Quick with Electron, how would you deal with that RAM consumption?), and if you're joining some other ecosystems, chances are that the difficulty for maintenance will rise exponentially. And say, among those "alternatives," which can provide at least a good match in terms of commercial-level documentation and consistency in API structure? wxWidgets? Hey, I saw so many news to migrate from wxWidgets to Qt but not in the opposite way.

Think of it. When a new language is created, one of the external libraries bound to that language ecosystem at the first time is Qt, which shows what Qt is among developers.

Of course I fully understand the "wrath" from the open source community. I see bugs, report them, and even provide patches for them, and my contributions are applied only to commercial buyers? Yes you have your reasons. Yet...... We also have to admit that we're using commercial grade library without charge in return. And you know what? Before 2011, Qt didn't have LTS at all. (on a side note, if you distinguish open source projects to those with LTS and without one, the former will be only a handful of them).

Well, I don't say that it's great to decide not to provide LTS to open source community. I'd say that it's a typical example of monopoly. The problem is that practically there's no competition. And I don't think that the commercial market is big enough for more than two companies can coexist. Let's admit (the harsh) reality. However hard the open source community works, without good financial support(either by companies or from foundations), you need to pour the money for more than years. Do you think that there would be a company to invest more than years to build a good alternative to Qt? I don't thinks so.

Someone said that he can't upgrade the version of Qt because LTS is not provided. Well, I'd say that how would you use a library which doesn't provide LTS at all, regarding your concerns about stability?