Sorry, you've lost me. If the answer to your question happens to be the negative outcome, we are in peril, so it's not changing my assessment.
Discussion
If you can’t follow the logic, how can you meaningfully assess the risk and assert peril?
Are you basing your position on a narrative inherited from others (experts you’re trusting) rather than understanding the core assertion?
Bitcoin’s ethos is the opposite: don’t trust, verify. So should we accept an assumed threat on authority alone, or should we examine the assumptions ourselves before declaring Bitcoin in danger? Wouldn’t taking expert narratives at face value without independent verification be the very betrayal of Bitcoin’s foundational principle?