It is not at all obvious that stub resolvers are "braindead" and the "correct answer" is full recursive lookups on the desktop. One way you know this is that no mainstream operating system works this way; another way you know it is that the DNSSEC designers explicitly took stub resolvers into account; yet another is that full recursive lookups eliminates caching, which the DNS depends thoroughly on.
I'm not interested in a debate about a fictitious version of DNS that you make up as the discussion progresses. I think we can probably just wrap up here.
You've written off the whole protocol because of 1990's cryptography. I think it's reasonable to just ignore the specific parts that don't require cooperation to change.
I would be interested in any stats that the DNS system actually "relies" on having clients share caches. Firing out UDP packets is a heck of a lot easier than a TCP/TLS session, and modern websites take the latter for granted for every single user.
If clients sharing a cache is actually important, that's actually a negative point for DoH/DoT as increased resource utilization means that major authoritative servers will be tempted to form a clique with major recursive resolvers, rather than everyone being able to query the zones directly.
I'm not interested in a debate about a fictitious version of DNS that you make up as the discussion progresses. I think we can probably just wrap up here.