> Which is just as it should be.
I think you fail to understand the relationship, or lack of, between IPv4 and IPv6.
IPv4 only hosts have no way to reach services hosted on IPv6 addresses. This means nobody who wants to run a public service can stop supporting IPv4 until all of their potential users support IPv6.
IPv6 end users can connect to services hosted on IPv4-only servers just fine. End users on properly configured IPv6-only networks literally don't care if the destination is IPv4, IPv6, or dual stack.
If you run a typical website then you will get literally no benefit from supporting IPv6 in addition to IPv4. The only reason it is relevant for the register to support IPv6 is for symbolic reasons, as a supposedly technical site.
It is not the hundreds of switches on a major Telco network that need more IP addresses. It is your laptop, mobile phone, watch, car, dishwasher... NAT was invented as a solution to the fact that it very quickly became apparent that they didn't have enough IP addresses to handle the concept of every house being online with multiple computers in each house. They hadn't imagined the smart watch.
It is a requirement to get an app in to mobile app stores that it function on an IPv6-only network. This is not some ideology based rule, but a reality of the modern world where huge numbers of people use IPv6-only networks daily.
Verizon for example can number all of their own infrastructure out of private address just fine, and in fact their infrastructure mostly requires no external connectivity so no global IPs or NATs. But, how exactly do they provide IPv4 connectivity to (according to Wikipedia, assuming a 1:1 ratio of customers to connections) 146 million customers? The expensive NATs needed to handle thousands of users on large enterprise networks are trivial compared to when you start needing to handle those sorts of numbers.