Could Bitcoin Cash be destined to fail no matter what?

One of the reasons the Bitcoin Cash community has pointed out Bitcoin Cash is that Bitcoin has a very high transaction cost, and BTC is not suited for small transactions. And that people with very little money won't be able to use bitcoin at all. Could it be that this mentally could be wrong and that as long as the BCH community thinks like this, the project is doomed to fail?

If your coffee cost $1, but the transaction cost is $5, you won't be able to use Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer currency with such high fees. So Lightning Network was created to solve this issue, but if you don't want to pay for the opening and closing fees, you will be forced to use Lightning Network custodians like the case and point Chivo Wallet from El Salvador. Users that can't or won't like to pay the fees will have to trust custodians.

In the case of El Salvador, many citizens only make between $5 to $25 a day, and as such, the Bitcoin Cash community could say that Bitcoin has failed because poor people can use the Bitcoin Blockchain, and it was not the way Satoshi planned for Bitcoin to be used. But here is my but:

If poor people can't use and save up, it is not Bitcoin's fault. Those who only have 5 dollars today should consider saving up for tomorrow, and if people wish to trust custodians, it is their own business. Still, those poor who don't have enough funds to open and close their channels should save up enough until they can afford it, so they don't have to trust anyone. You can start your channel with as little as 0.001BTC with some nodes and over 0.004BTC for most nodes. That means those making only $2 a day should save up until they have enough to open and close channels. Then you will say that those poor people won't be able to participate; in the case of Bitcoin Cash, you can start with as little as $0.01, but Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin; at least the price hasn't manifested that yet.

Poor people should save up, period. That is sound financial advice, and there are always be poor people. Even Jesus Christ told us that there will always be poor people, and you can't stop doing what you are doing to save the poor because, in reality, the only ones who can save the poor are themselves. If poor people don't want to save up enough to have their channels, they should use custodians and be subject to whatever losses they may bring.

Suppose you tell me that Bitcoin Cash is for poor people because of low fees. In that case, you are telling me that eventually, you will have many poor people who can use your currency but don't have enough funds for the price to pump; the money will be helpful and work as Satoshi wanted. Still, at that point, you may have a coin that poor people use and another one that only rich people use. Guess what that is segregation.

When the rich leave your town soon after, all the jobs leave your town too, and the thing that settles in is poverty everywhere in your city, and you, the working poor, are forced to migrate where the rich went.

Are you telling me that because of low fees, only poor people will end up using Bitcoin as Bitcoin Cash? and the rich will continue to use Bitcoin and those rich don't care about the high fees and their asset is growing in purchasing power; meanwhile the investment for the poor the costs are cheap, but the value is only going down.

My article is very provocative, and I would say very naive, but I can't help because if you think that because poor people can't afford fees, Bitcoin Cash will be number con pretty much what you are telling me is that the poor at some point will own wall Street. My analogy could be completely wrong, so leave your opinion of what you think about my article and the topic I'm writing.