A whole lot of ISPs are doing CGNAT for IPv4 now, mostly in Asia. Starlink does it. It's mostly OK but has a lot of drawbacks, particularly IP-based geolocation. (Starlink does not support IPv6 although they seem to be rolling it out this month.)
Being behind CGNAT has downsides yes, for example being unable to ever host anything; you become relegated to a consumer who's dependent on the big hosting companies to ever have an Internet presence. But geolocation? I don't want everyone to be able to get my location! Breaking IP-based geolocation is a benefit of CGNAT, not a drawback.
It's a huge PITA though. I'm near Sacramento but my IP looks like it's in Los Angeles. It screws up a surprising number of things, particularly local TV streaming services.
IP geolocation is a bad idea for lots of reasons. Unfortunately it's also a reality of how services work.
My ISP (Metronet, Ohio, US) uses CGNAT. I’ve had their service for about 15 months now, and it has been pretty much uneventful. Maybe a handful of times I’ve gotten a captcha on something, but for the most part, it’s just fine. I also don’t see thousands of blocked connection attempts a day either, so there is a plus side. I just use Tailscale should I need to access anything at home while I’m away.
Try accessing the web through TOR and you see why public, shared IP addresses are quite a hassle in practice. Exit nodes don't host anything either, after all.
Actually, that's not even that bad a way to get IPv4 on any IPv6-only host: route it all through TOR!
