Comparing Bitcoin to gold, Brody suggested that Ethereum is more like a technology standard: "The tech industry loves a standard. Android is 90% of the mobile market, Windows is 90% of the PC market," he said. "I fully expect Ethereum will eventually be 90% of the blockchain computing platform market."

Sounds like a nice and clear distinction for board members, but this might have implications for economic security. What if everybody follows and ETH becomes not valuable enough?

Ethereum doesn’t need to be highly valuable

AFAIK, some of the security simply depends on the fact, that an attack to fork the chain into a desired state would be too costly, atm.

Agree with @rvolz.eth that Ethereum needs to be highly valuable, because otherwise the cost of attack goes down.

On the other hand, Paul says:

but fundamentally, the valuation of Ethereum is based on a discounted cash flow model. It generates transaction fees. You stake it, you get yield. It’s actually really simple.

So trying to steelman his argument, maybe it's more about: don't focus on deflationary monetary policy, focus on generating more tx fees?

If passed, the GENIUS Act would create a regulatory framework for stablecoins in the U.S., allowing banks to issue and custody stablecoins while also integrating DeFi applications into the traditional financial system

Sounds very bullish, but... makes me a bit worried, given the last post about stablecoins (https://news.kiwistand.com/stories/How-stablecoins-impact-Ethereum-credible-neutrality?index=0x67d0a64e6ee1376426197bc6d1a69657d7af5292d32db6a19873756d2ca481c0ed73eb2f)

Imagine there's $2T worth of stablecoins on Ethereum, most issued by TradFi banks. Wouldn't that give them a lot of power over potential forks, as most people would choose the network where they have their money? Or am I missing something?