Right, of course it is, but if the Qt company goes under the highest risk is that its assets get purchased by a hostile entity, which releases everything with a year's delay and doesn't allow community governance/contributions. Imagine Qt owned by Oracle and you'll understand my concern. Of course if that happens KDE and the other current Qt users will likely fork it, but someone like Oracle can do a shitton of damage to the community in the process by threatening litigation.

The issue with the commercial licensing is that if you are a commercial licensee you are contractually prevented from contributing to Qt in some ways. See https://www.qt.io/terms-conditions/ and search for "Prohibited combination". If you are able to comply with the GPL or LGPL components without becoming a licensee, this is better in every way (you get to contribute, you have much more legal safety if the company gets acquired by a hostile entity, you don't have to worry about what happens when your license expires, and of course you save money). So those license terms are actively preventing the Qt company from getting revenue, because you get a worse deal in most ways if you pay them than if you don't. This is why I'm uncomfortable with Qt in non-GPL/LGPL commercial projects. You get trapped and you can't relicense your project to GPL afterwards even if you want to.