1/ I’m pro-Bitcoin. But let’s be honest: network effects are the strongest force in money and platforms—and they can shift.

2/ In 2004, almost no one could forecast Facebook’s eventual dominance. Likewise, we can’t predict how Bitcoin vs. Ethereum network effects will evolve with high confidence.

3/ Different design bets shape those effects:

• Bitcoin: minimal surface area, monetary credibility, slow/rare changes (“ossification”).

• Ethereum: programmability + faster upgrade cadence (L2s, account models, hard forks).

Both attract users/devs for different reasons.

4/ Quantum risk (today): big, fault-tolerant quantum computers would threaten current signature schemes.

– Bitcoin: secp256k1 (ECDSA) for transactions.

– Ethereum: most accounts use secp256k1; validators use BLS12-381.

None of these are quantum-safe.

5/ Path to mitigation: migrate to post-quantum signatures (e.g., lattice or hash-based). Coordination is the bottleneck, not math. Systems with more centralized/streamlined governance can usually ship such upgrades faster; highly decentralized systems move slower by design. That’s a real trade-off, not a value judgment.

6/ I still favor Bitcoin for monetary neutrality and resilience. But network effects are dynamic, and upgrade agility vs. governance risk is the core tension. Anyone claiming certainty about the end state is overconfident.