Why not just move to 3.0?
Semver only says that a breaking change MUST be an increase to the major version. It doesn't proscribe an increase of the major version without a breaking change.
> Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the: MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner, and PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.
Calver side-steps this user bias.
Users shy away from major version numbers because they are allowed to change things in incompatible ways. When you jump a major version you're signaling that stuff might intentionally break, and they make their decisions accordingly. The solution is not to make your communication with user even worse!
I dislike the idea of going away from SemVer just for marketing purposes. At least as a user when I’m going to upgrade versions then I could see that “oh, this version doesn’t break compatibility”
Well, no, it just means users won't update at all, because every version could be breaking...