If 'making money' was the objective Twitter was definitely on the wrong path with its radically oversized and underworked staff but let's make one thing clear: it is definitely not making money which is the first measurement to track - that may come later but for now the objective is to make the place live up to its supposed intended purpose of being the 'town square' where everyone can put up posters and notes. Twitter resembled a college campus where any poster or note not abiding to the desired narrative was quickly pulled down or pasted over. Current X is closer to a town square which just so happens to be situated right next to a number of schools with rowdy pupils with an ample supply of posters and buckets of glue. They're half-way there, now they need to keep the shitposters and spammers in check somehow without falling in the same trap that so many other places - this one often among them - have succumbed to: they need to keep the window of allowed discourse as wide as possible while keeping the place navigable. If you've read books like Snow Crash or e.g. Otherland you'll have come across descriptions of 'online markets' where the unprepared visitor is bombarded from all sides by hawkers peddling their goods. The solution to that problem always ends up being some form of 'client-side filtering', i.e. just like what is keeping e-mail useable through the onslaught of spam. Whether this ends up being done through some form of browser extension or a proxy like Nitter (which I use) remains to be seen.

To come back to your original premise it also remains to be seen how X can end up with a sustainable business model. The same was true for Twitter so this is not a new thing. There is an organised advertising boycott against X which was spearheaded by those who are angry that what they considered to be "their" medium was opened up to the "bitter clingers, garbage, deplorables and irredeemables* (to use but a few of the terms bandied about by the old guard when referring to those who do not abide by their ideology) which will eventually peter out so that is one of the potential avenues. Additional revenue streams may be found by extending X - which in itself is a rather simple and low-bandwidth service - with features like video streaming etc.

Will I use such a service? Most likely not, I never used Twitter and I do not use X since I dislike the format. I also prefer decentralised services over centralised ones so I self-host nearly all services I use. Why then do I not support 'Twitter alternatives' like Mastodon or Threads over X? Threads is connected to Metafacebook which I shun like the plague so that is out just like any other service run by that abomination is. Mastodon is a collection of fiefdoms run by petty tyrants who wield the ban hammer like the old Twitter regime dreamed they could do. I do self-host a number of 'fediverse' services (Peertube, Pleroma, Pixelfed, Lemmy - only Peertube sees any real use, the rest is purely experimental) but I do not see these as alternatives due to their limited reach:

person A posts something on fediverse site B which will never be seen by those who use fediverse site C since that site is run by a petty tyrant who bans everyone on fediverse site B because that site *did not ban* fediverse site D where someone once posted something which the petty tyrant running fediverse site B does not like.