Read on Twitter
IMO one should think about @100trillionUSD& #39;s S2F model like Moore& #39;s Law: it& #39;s just an observation and speculative projection an observed trend may continue. "Moore& #39;s Law" projected the number of transistors in microprocessors would double every 2 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moor...
many were wrongly projecting the imminent demise of Moore& #39;s Law for decades and despite expectation, it held for a remarkably long time: since 1975, only recently showing signs of physical limit asymptotic effects, new R&D and higher investment kept breaking expectation.
and more: context technology does not build itself, Moore& #39;s Law is actually an economic effect. the demand comes from the network effect and market value of microprocessor adoption, software, new hardware, new use cases, miniaturisation, cost reduction, speed, efficiency.
market demand leads investors to risk capital (silicon R&D financing is the historic root of silicon valley VC model even) cost of foundries has increased enormously over time, and R&D budgets. if there was little demand, little network effect, Moore& #39;s law would not have held.
back to S2F detractors, arguing that "bitcoin price is a function of demand" micro-processor investment was also a function of demand, and yet Moore& #39;s Law was remarkably consistent and long-lived beyond expectation, and in fact a highly useful mental model for IT hardware trends.
while microprocessor optimization is also physics and blue sky R&D, productization, reliability, mass production, is I would argue much more driven by the enormous commercialization investment, itself driven by demand coming from network effect of "sofware eating the world"
