I'm not a BTC maxi, but there are a few concepts fueling Bitcoin that Charles either doesn't address, or simply thinks too orthogonally to empathize with:<br>- Bitcoin people don't want bitcoin to be anything more than a one-trick pony. They want it simply to emulate in the digital world what gold provides in the physical world.<br>- Bitcoin's proof of work algorithm is hard and energy consumptive on purpose. It is intended to translate energy into value, that's why it was termed 'mining'. If you could take a cheap smartphone from 5 years ago, and use it to generate tokens worth &gt;40k dollars, is there real value being created?<br>- Proof of stake replicates an unfortunate problem with society as it currently functions: those in power remain in power. Or, in other words, if you have money, it's easier to make more money and maintain what you have. That is a result of staking, if it takes 50,000 cardano to run a full node, only those people who can afford 50k ADA have the ability to break that barrier. So, decentralization is reduced. There are plenty of arguments regarding BTC also suffering on the decentralization front because of the expense of mining equipment, but as far as I am concerned, the barriers built into the system are lower in POW than in POS.<br><br>In Charles' defense, I did not see his response video to Dorsey.,(reply>), I think this is the point he was making. If you cannot evolve BTC, then others will come, like ETH and ADA which can be a store of value, PLUS other things. How attractive is a PoW store of value, compared to PoS+more utility?