I don't think that's an indication that their CAs will be removed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are not less safe than other certificates, they just don't add any additional value. So they will probably be treated the same as other certificates by browsers. If people will continue paying for them is another matter of course (but it might very well happen that they will have many customers for years to last).
EVs and security is a fun topic, including obvious sarcasm. They generally are more secure for 3 reasons:
1) hardfail on revocation checks
2) you can't get around any errors generated by an EV
3) you can't fake them by truststore manipulation (except ie and maybe edge) as the ev roots are hard compiled into the browser and not dependent on the external trust store.
Validation would have been a 4th reasons if it wouldn't be for all the obvious problems with it especially lately.
The problem is what people imply or are made to imply from different cert types.
Back in the day people were told to just check for the lock, which obviously is dumb considering now everyone can get a dv for free.
Then with EV CAs told people that sites with ev are more trustworthy. Obviously nonsense considering the excluded usages of EVs in the cabforum documents. EVs are only supposed to make a hard link between an offline and online legal entity, and even that failed with stripe.ian.sh (although that's not exactly the fault of EVs)
EVs now get so much higher implied security that the real vs implied security ratio is obviously very ugly while DVs becoming standard obviously have much more real security than implied (if people check the urlbar correctly)
That is a good point, I didn't know most of it and it shades a whole new light on the EV topic for me. Especially 3) is a bombshell to me, as I was under the impression that at - least theoretically - the users have control about who they trust.
