I consider them extremely exploitative.

In the fandom the relationship between commissions and commission is one that is accepted by custom, but there is very little legal force. Unless you have explicitly licenced your ref sheet or otherwise worked out terms with the artist you commission you effectively have no licence or ownership of any given commission. In the context of a regular commission this isn't so much a problem because we don't really intend to use our characters commercially or do anything more with a commission than show it to friends. In this case the money is more or less being paid into the community to support the cycle of commissioner/artist culture.

Adoptables represent to me straight up double dipping and exploiting commissioners. Someone who adopts a character has no more ownership of that character than anyone else and nothing of their own is even in it. And the ridiculous expense that i've seen some adoptables go reminds me that the internet is still very much a wild west when it comes to artistic services.

I know that adoptables are popular, but to me they are no more or less honest than running a shell con in lieu of donations. If you offer them, that is your prerogative, but I can not support the practice and I would encourage anyone doing so to at least offer an explicit license if you are going to do them.

If you offer adoptables, I will factor that in to how I choose to spend my commission budget.

I do not support the practice and consider them actively exploitative of the community.

You can disagree if you like but that is where my position lies. I consider it a fair and well thought out opinion.