Convenience isn't aesthetic. If one party can pay money to trade quicker and easier, and store more stuff easier (and have constant access to it), and another party doesn't, the party that doesn't is at a disadvantage.
I get that they have to earn money. Maybe the aesthetic upgrades only cash shop they assured us of couldn't have worked. But if they've gone from only allowing players to buy bling, to now allowing players to buy convenience, they've betrayed their original "ethical f2p" vision.
POE is a good game that's 95% free to play or so, in my opinion. When you play it for free though, you certainly feel the borders of the free experience, when one character running through a single difficulty already has a full stash, and I know if I just paid 10$ or so I wouldn't have to play re-arrange the stash every time I want to store something new. I know I'd be spending a higher % of my time doing something fun instead of something tedious. Managing an excel spreadsheet is boring stuff I do at work, if it made no difference nobody would pay for the easier way.
They don't owe me anything, but I don't want them parading around this idea that they have invented this ethical free to play model that only allows aesthetic upgrades to be purchased. That is untrue, they engage in "fun pain", just not to the same degree as Zynga. And every time a new type of collectible item is introduced, with a low stack size, you have to wonder, is this to make the game more fun, or is this to push people to buy more stash space?(It's probably mostly for fun, but the suspicion will always be there)
I suppose everyone has a place they draw the line. To me, allowing 24 characters per account, and allowing you to purchase more was technically not aesthetic, but jeez, who needs more than 24 character slots? So that didn't bother me at all. After all, they do have to store those characters somewhere. But to have artificially low limits on stackable currency, then introduce a $7.50 stash tab that allows them to suddenly stack up to 5000 per slot is just creating a problem, then selling the solution. If the low stack sizes were intended somehow as a balance mechanism, then you're allowing people to buy an advantage by bypassing that limit(P2W). If it wasn't a balance mechanism, then why was the stack size so low in the first place(Fun Pain)?
I am not attacking anyone for playing this game. I play it! If you enjoy it, great! It's the best allegedly free game I've ever seen, as I said, it's fair to say it's 95% free to play, it's just really unfortunate that the original claim has been broken. I hate the idea of the industry moving toward this model where I can't just pay once for a game, then I have the game and I know they've made it the best experience they can. So I'm going to call a spade a spade, and you might say "well it's really just a tiny little spade" and I'll agree with you.