I think the difference is that SN has too low a number of active users to support a naturally less popular or more neiche territories. a territory could fail without it objectively 'sucking', just because of low engagement.

if there were a ton more users, it wouldn't be a problem because rising tides lift all boats.

now you could argue that if something isn't interesting enough then it doesn't warrant a territory, which is fair enough, but i think that would limit the scope of SN and hinder broader adoption.

a bit like how nostr is just 98% bitcoin content that puts normies off  and stops it from becoming something that could and should take a share from twitter etc

stack_harder

could SN have dynamic territory fees based on engagement?

I feel like this is like asking for a government subsidy. 
"My territory sucks, so I need SN to subsidize my investment."
People that take the risks will get the reward.
If you cant stomach that....I dont know what to say. 