This is categorically untrue. There used to be space for 19 or 20 WT teams, the cap at 18 is still quite recent.
Weren't you complaining that the small races handed out too many points, meaning that smaller teams were getting squeezed out of opportunities by teams in the relegation battle sending quality lineups? So which is it - do smaller races or WT races hand out too many points for the relegation battle? You can't have it both ways depending on which suits your argument...
Also, Total got the automatic WCs for this year despite being nowhere near promotion. The system, while imperfect, is nowhere near as closed as you make it seem, and IMO has made it more attractive for sponsors like Uno-X and Tudor to properly invest in their respective teams because the awkward phase between smaller team and WT team where you're at the mercy of the organisers has been mostly eliminated by the auto-WCs. Would have given Alpecin their GT debut a year earlier had the system been in place then as well, which would unequivocally have been a good thing. And things will actually get more competitive in the near future, because we are likely to finally be rid of WT Astana after 2025.
The problem with the smaller races was the absurd imbalance between one day races and stage races, that meant podiums in two or three one-day races in the saturated "flat to rolling Belgian and northern French race" category were worth almost as much as winning a World Tour race.
I think there's too many WT teams, and organisers should have more flexibility to invite who they want. One of the things about cycling that seems to be underappreciated in today's scene is the way races have their own individual characters not just in what they look like but who rides them. I miss the days of Italian ProConti teams who would go hell for leather for the Giro and build their entire year around it - they wouldn't compete year-long with the WT teams, but they would be a handful at the race, not just some unheralded guy that once won a stage of Settimana Coppi e Bartali sitting three minutes in front of a bored-looking péloton for three and a half hours in a Tirreno-Adriatico stage as the sum total of their involvement in the year's racing. I miss the days of teams like Landbouwkrediet having people that would genuinely threaten to podium the Classics, because that was the entire year to them. It was part of what gave those races their characters. But nowadays genuine GC riders and threats are off-limits to those teams, other than the small handful that can guarantee the majority of the invites. Total got those invites largely not because the organisers thought they were going to be competitive or because they were a stronger team than those around them, but rather because they were likely to bring Peter Sagan. Nowadays the wildcard teams buy some second rate sprinter to try to win some points in smaller races because of that imbalance, meaning they're another team trying to make it boring, not a team trying to upset the apple cart anymore. If we're lucky, they get a Sagan or a Froome (or formerly a Garzelli or Pozzato), a veteran with name value who can help get invites to attract fans to races but is not so likely to actively impact the outcome anymore.
18 teams locked to invites is about as maximal as I would give it, and pretending to offer flexibility while insisting on "compulsory wildcards" is ridiculous. I don't mind them restricting the wildcard invites to the top 40 to rule out total cannon fodder, but making it top 30 means that it's going to end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the top teams that get the invites get the most points and therefore keep getting the invites.
But hey, I'm an old curmudgeon. The Premier League makes a lot more money than the old Division One did in England, right? It doesn't matter that if you get promoted you have to buy an entire new squad and spend €100m+ like Aston Villa or Nottingham Forest did if you want to survive, and teams that have spent out and then got relegated, or just teams in lower divisions that never sniffed a cent of the increased revenues, have gone bust. They weren't in the PL at the time, so they ceased to exist in the minds of the casual fan. There is no problem.
And we have all been taught to dream by the fresh ink of the newspapers, Soyuzpechat'.
Edit: I guess what I'm saying is, one of the things that originally drew me into cycling, and one of the things I liked about it, was the cast of thousands, that each race you watched could have a totally different field, with totally different goals, so you only got to see the best of the best face off with one another periodically in the biggest races and it felt special. It didn't feel like it was structured like Formula One. I feel like they're trying to restructure it to be more like Formula One, with all the talent in a fixed number of teams that fight out the entire calendar. That isn't the sport that I fell in love with, and the more it turns into that, the less I feel like I recognise it as the sport of cycling. It's still cyclists racing each other from point A to point B, but it's no more the sport of cycling to me than the world of DRS zones, "let the Mercedes through, we're not racing them" radio messages and tarmac runoff penalty fights is F1 to people who grew up on Senna vs. Prost vs. Mansell vs. Piquet in the 80s.