There are a couple of big flaws in this. The risks of enforcing or not enforcing a soft fork are not equal. The side enforcing the soft fork has *zero* chance of losing a reorganization war to the non-enforcing side. They have a risk of their side being worthless. But investors also face this same risk, anyone receiving a transaction on the soft-fork side will not be re-organized, yet the investor on the other side does. This gives a significant advantage to the soft fork side.
A lot is described here:
Soft forks that have no major downsides (cost, risk, degraded usability) will likely just be enforced as long as there is sufficient demand. SegWit was unique in that it’s enforcement did bear a significant cost for a subset of miners. Thus as long as soft forks are proposed that are generally harmless to most users, I would expect them to continue to be applied and Bitcoin continue to grow and change with time.