You're both right. It is frustrating, it does feel necessary but it also feels like a tremendous use of resources. And even with the hardware capable of running the high end videos, the nicer "max" SLR sizes don't offer much in terms of efficiency than the original videos. There's an 8K SLR encode at 8.3 GB and then there's the original video and it's 10.8 GB. There's hardly a difference in terms of size at all. When one of the most prominent member of the SLR team is posting that 'No one is shooting above 6K,'* and then the SLR encodes are still in 8K, it seems like a waste.
My proposal is to settle on 6K for the SLR tailored encodes. If people want the 7K or 8K originals, they'll still be there. For everybody who wants the nicer but still efficient encodes, there is a 6K option. That seems like the perfect middle ground. The number of encodes is still the same, the only difference is you save a little storage and more people are more pleased with the options because in reality if you demand the 8K video because 6K isn't good enough for you, you can DL the extra 23% filesize, and if you want something above the minimal threshold that looks nice without a ballooned filesize, then that audience is finally served as well.
My proposal: Original 6-8K video, 6K SLR, 4K SLR, 4K SLR h264 for low end phones and bloated 3K & 4K h264 for PS4/Pro since it lacks the hardware to run h264 efficiently.
*Paraphrasing. Whatever the exact quote was, I can't remember and I'm certainly not going to argue with his expertise.