Lets see. I grab my instrument, grab any notes and music, grab a music stand maybe put it in a vehicle or pack it in a case and go to the event.

Unload what?

If you play tin whistle then you don't have much to unload. I may go to events with a couple of melodeons, a couple of concertinas, a hammered dulcimer plus stand, and maybe a guitar, as well as a few other items. I'm not including PA gear here. All this has to be unloaded, transported from the car to the stage, unpacked and set up, and the dulcimer tuned (that's 108 strings). Then pack it all away afterwards and reverse the process. Double the effort if PA is included and add time for a sound check (which could take a couple of hours if there are several bands performing).

Free music with most positive impact upon the tradition requires smaller venues 20-30 max. Break the big event into smaller stages and you win. Everyone wins and the tradition expands and the experience is much better.

Save money on the sound systems and huge stage sets.....easy.

If you cant see the saving and merit in that you must be blind.

Of course I can see the merit in small venues. I actually prefer them for most folk events. However I can also see the merit in big venues. Suppose you have a highly-regarded performer who lots of people want to see. You would limit the audience to 20 or 30 - how is that a "better experience" for all the others? That's a negative "impact upon the tradition", not a positive. Put that a performer on a bigger stage, with a PA so everyone can hear, and hundreds win and have a better experience. Isn't that positive?

How is the tradition expanded by limiting it to audiences of 20 or 30 at a time rather than audiences of hundreds or even thousands?

Large and small venues both have a place.