Indeed the routing tables can be simplified with ipv6. However I believe that the current solution is optimized too much for routing tables, and not at all for end-user usability.
You can modify my proposal to have multiple 16-bit prefixes to the 32-bit range syntax, and from that /80 range you give ASs depending on size a /104, /96, or /88, or something in between. That would still leave plenty of room for the ASs to distribute addresses to customers. Maybe customers could get /8s or such, with the option for bigger customers to get larger assignments. NAT on the router could be enabled by default, reserving the range for devices which explicitly request a publicly reachable address. Usually in most networks that number should be small.
End users do not need easier IP address unless they host something. even then one can use address compressed address and DNS.
The thing with IPv6 is it very different than IPv4, as such how we use it should not be compared with IPv4.
My ISP gives /64 for CPE and the internal routing is very easily setuped. My devices in the hotspot has different IPv6 address, VMs have different IP address. The communication between the devices happen locally without any NAT.
You can modify my proposal to have multiple 16-bit prefixes to the 32-bit range syntax, and from that /80 range you give ASs depending on size a /104, /96, or /88, or something in between. That would still leave plenty of room for the ASs to distribute addresses to customers. Maybe customers could get /8s or such, with the option for bigger customers to get larger assignments. NAT on the router could be enabled by default, reserving the range for devices which explicitly request a publicly reachable address. Usually in most networks that number should be small.