Additionally, to prevent this from turning into another proxy discussion, we're going to need to start with a few axioms:
1) There are two aspects to MTG we participate in, MTG the card game that consists of game objects, and MTG the collectable game that consists of collectable objects.
2) It is preferable to participate in both MTG's game aspect and trading aspect if possible
3) It is preferable for players to be able to play with cards (the game object) that they want to play with if possible.
tl;dr / abstract below:
I was mildly aware of this sentiment among Legacy players way back before Modern was created. You have a limited supply that can't increase, and an increasing demand. Not only is it not preferable for the barrier of entry among players to be so high, but at some point the format suffers as well. There was an attempt to fix this problem in 2010 by experimenting with reprinting cards on the reserve list, but the backlash was so strong that plan was quickly dropped. About a year afterward Modern was introduced: Wizards' solution to the price time bomb was there was no solution, let's make a new format where we are allowed to reprint.
Now for many veteran players, the prices, while high, aren't all that big of a deal. We have enough of a collection that, if we wanted a grim monolith ($287 as of the time of this writing), we could buylist cards we're not using to get up to that value. Or maybe we have one lying around in an unused deck we could cannibalize. Likewise, I suspect players who have the disposable income and are willing to grow their collections would consider this a heavy ask, but not impossible.
Let's go a bit further and look at The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale (close to $2000 at the time of writing). For those of you who own one, how willing are you to put it in your deck? Take the deck out for a night of EDH? shuffle your deck with the card inside? Leave your decks in your car while you go grocery shopping on your way home? For those with a large collection but don't have the card, what kind of non-RL cards would you need to trade to be able to get your hands on one? For those without the collection, would you be willing to throw down that kind of money to enjoy Tabernacle (the collectable item)?
It is an eventuality that, at some point most EDH-desirable cards on the RL will see prices close to Tabernacle if nothing is done to adjust the supply or demand.
Players will play with the game pieces they want to play with
Have you ever heard of "binder proxying"? A year or two ago I thought it was an interesting idea, keeping your valuable cards safe in your binder and playing proxies in the decks you bring to the table. In the past two months I've seen or heard of several independent cases of people talking about switching to this system, which means that either a content creator talked about it, or players are already getting to the point where they are willing to concede the impracticality of playing with cards (the collector's item) so they can play with cards (the game objects) with peace of mind. To me, this tells me that even players who never had any reason to proxy until now can pick up proxying if the circumstances get extreme enough.
You might think, "well why don't we all move to binder proxying then?" Well, it's not a perfect solution. Speaking from my perspective, the reason why I participate in MTG the collectable game is so I can use those cards in MTG the card game. Have you ever owned something collectable and just kept it in a drawer? Figures get posed and displayed. Legos are built and displayed, cars are driven. If we only cared about collecting the items and never "using" them in any way, they would remain in their original boxes with the wrap still around them. Cars would stay in a garage with the engine in long-term storage mode (not a car guy but I know engines don't like to sit unused for long periods of time, I assume there's a way to store them long-term without trouble). Anyways my point is it's nice to look at our cards, but better to play with them.
An ideal solution would be to re-introduce gold-bordered cards that are both game pieces and collector pieces.
Which brings us to the main point here: If the choice is between having players play with game objects that are not collectable versus playing with game objects that are collectable, we should strive for the latter. As things currently are, however, the latter is becoming less and less possible with certain cards.
In the short term, officially allowing gold border is a great solution, but this signal to Wizards would have to be met with action on their part too. I've heard that there are vastly fewer gold-bordered cards than there are of their reserve-list counterparts, so even if the rules committee were to announce GB legal, it wouldn't be a very long time before the GB card were not much cheaper than their RL counterparts. Likewise, I can see why the RC would be reluctant to announce GB legal without ensuring Wizards is ready with a product soon, doing so would create immense market instability as the cards prices would shoot up, then drop once product is announced.
Wizard's current solution of printing close-to-but-not-really versions like Wheel of Misfortune might help a bit, but it falls short on two counts: It's not suppressing demand for the original RL card when players can play both, and the differences between the new card and the original can be large enough to warrant wanting the original (see: players can save their hand from Wheel of Misfortune but can't from Wheel of Fortune).
To my mind, the only reasonable solution is to open the gates to gold border. Most other solutions involve kicking the can down the road, or massive concessions to player sensibilities. We're going to reach a point in the future where it's no longer practical to play RL cards, I'd at least like to be able to play with collector pieces in that future if possible.