Sure, 1. Yes, a lot of effort is put into problem curation. Some parts of math are very problem list oriented while others are more program oriented. The work put into formulating the “correct” or “meaningful” (both of these adjectives should be taken in context) questions is not “somehow worthless” now, but the problems themselves now can/will no longer serve the same purpose they did. A significant part of their purpose was to organize the fields. If a solved problem could still provide a reference point for a field to organize around is a question I don’t really have the answer to.

2. Yes, math is bigger than the solved problems, of course. There is a plausibly infinite number of problems and theorems to work on. That being said, the ability to ask new questions which are of some “mathematical use” requires skills built from working on and solving prior problems. It might have happened to you in college at an advanced class where the professor would turn to the class and ask if there were any question, but everyone is so past their depth that despite being confused, no questions are asked. I’m not saying math is coming to an end but rather that one part of it, the question asking part, has become harder while the question answering part has become much easier.

The above depends on some understanding of what makes something useful in mathematics, which is not something I trust myself to relay the nuances of. Anyways, I hope I elucidated my opinions workably enough.