I don’t care if something flips BTC. But there’s a lot wrong here: 1. What’s the TAM for global non-sovereign SoV (unproductive assets)? 2. What’s the market cap of the top 10 global companies? Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, Nvidia, Saudi Aramco, Berkshire, Broadcom, Tesla. Hint: still less than gold (an almost inert element. That matters.) 3. All tech, no matter how advanced, gets replaced. Cars, planes, phones, comms, biotechnology, space tech, robotics, etc. - none are the same as 100 years ago. Ledger tech went electronic only ~60 years ago. But SoV assets last millennia. Why? Precisely because they don’t innovate. They resist disruption. 4 No one can predict L1 supply 10 years out with confidence. That matters. 5. “Maximalists say there will be only one credibly neutral, internet native store of value. They are dead wrong.” Ok, but what are you trying to prove? That Doge exists? Or that this isn’t a winner-takes-most game? Gold is $22T. Silver? $2T. 6. And even today, there are many ledgers competing, whether you and I like it or not, with each other. Victory is not achieved yet for any smart contract platform, forget about even qualifying to be called digital store of value. 7. Don’t even get me started on PoW vs PoS. Bottom line: There’s money crypto and tech crypto. You’re blending them. Tech is utilitarian. Tech gets faster and cheaper. Always gets replaced. Money converges to a Keynesian beauty contest. It is a social construct. Nothing about it is utilitarian in a technological sense. An emergent phenomenon. Resists technological disruption. Two different games. For ETH to actually compete, it would be 100x time better to look forward and compete with Solana and other fast L1s rather than waste energy on irrelevant vanity metrics.