As I already pointed out - the NBA wasn't subsidizing the WNBA out of altruism. They were getting a return even if it wasn't showing up in the WNBA's ledger.
The Golden State Warriors were brought up to show how insignificant the 40 million dollars in losses is compared to the 10s of billions in revenue the NBA collects. That 40 million was 3/10ths of 1% of the NBA's total revenue. It was equivalent to an MLE contract. Patrick Williams, a shitty PF and roughly the 8th best player on the Bulls could subsidize the WNBA for two years on his contract alone. The Bucks just paid Damien Lillard 113 million to go away and not play for them. That 40 million means nothing to the NBA and subsidizing the WNBA was/is the equivalent of a 3 month long commercial to grow the game.
Yes, Caitlin Clark is a huge part of the recent surge in popularity the WNBA is experiencing and that will help to drive the new CBA (which Caitlin will benefit from). I'm not sure it really needs to be said, but if that somehow validates you - there you go. But Caitlin won't see your post and she's definitely not going to fuck you.
20 years of losses have nothing to do with this current crop of players - as you yourself have said, the player leading this new wave of excitement is only in her second season.