I agree with your general prognosis, that the future is probably crypto, thanks for posting.
Yours is the view I had early in crypto, before I'd started working on the energy and climate problem.
Since then, after working through the energy implications, taking into account also that mathematically positive energy is actually free, we might realise the ultimate value proposition of Bitcoin is a little like hydrogen. In fact it is directly exchangeable for green hydrogen, but actually more than that, it will ultimately be exchangeable for a constant supply of green hydrogen, or anything else creatable from solar energy, since in the end, it might turn out to be conveniently attributable to all of the solar energy in existence, after we have gone to 100% solar energy powered.
To me, it looks like Ethereum took itself out of the running, when it went to pos. I couldn't believe they would actually make that change but they did.
Personally I think they could even have been following orders to deliberately sabotage the token.
Logically, the "Energy content" of a token is extremely important, as well as the number of users.
The number of users can only continue to increase, as long as the token has some intrinsic value which can be simply scaled by the market, according to the number of users, by Metcalfe's law, but there really has to be something to scale.
If a token goes to pos, like Ethereum has done, well, how can that be anything but a blatant Ponzi. It fits the definition of a Ponzi perfectly, with value of new tokens depending entirely on value of previous tokens held by users. Ouch.
Here is an energy systemic analysis of Bitcoin which might help see it in a more energyist "Light", beyond capitalism, for anyone interested:
https://eric-bott.medium.com/could-bitcoin-be-a-kardashev-hinge-b5d92df02795
Further, on progress of solar energy, which is absolutely systemically related (Beware also some criticism of conventional "Science"!), there is this:
