Indeed. Availability and cost(~value) are not the same thing.
OP does state what dates he/she is looking for. Or routes.
100's - 1000's of people are *now* looking to travel. Demand is high for awards and cash tickets
This really seems to be a case of potatoe potatoh.
Deliberately coded devaluation because of perceived "demand" even though the same 10 seats are available as they were a month ago is a devaluation, regardless of how you want to paint or spin it.
Availability is a factor that makes up the value. Take the extreme example of 0 redemptions or just 1 per year being made available to all flyers within the pool. This is a deVALUation.
Just like how there are 10 seats available two weeks ago (and you can book 4 redemptions), and 10 seats available now (but this week you could only book one seat).
I really, really don't get the corporate simping or how people don't understand the basic concept that a deVALUation (worth) can come in the form of reduced availability or worsened conditions, despite the points cost not increasing.
If this change happened gradually and naturally based on the previous rules that were already in place, I'd say your anecdotal theories make sense. But these were deliberate / released and cliffed code changes, not natural ones as a factor of natural availability reducing. There were distinct coding changes on the back end..
Furthermore, if I was the only one mentioning these issues, you could say I'm crazy or imagining it due to "increased demand". There is literally one thread about the dripfeeding issue, and another about SQ (as well as someone above who actually checked SQ who is confirming what I am seeing)
If the rule before was that if ALL seats on a flight are available to buy, 4 are made available to the redemption pool and you can book them all at once. Now that rule has arbitrarily changed. That is a devaluation :/