1) The focus on limited supply as the value proposition for Bitcoin is misleading people to view ETH as a superior investment if it has decreasing supply

Ultimately the true value of Bitcoin is it's battle tested resistance to changes in monetary policy

2) Even if ETH was actively deflationary, decreasing in supply each year, it would not possess the true value that Bitcoin brings as a monetary asset

Ethereum exposes itself to multitudes of risks that are not appropriate for a purely monetary good

3) I don't want to store my life savings in something that is constantly changing, upgrading, and focused on 10 different goals

I also don't want a small group of developers to have undue influence over the direction of the base network

4) In this post I am not evening arguing against these things, or saying there is zero value there

But I am saying they are non-value adds for a pure monetary asset

The base SoV layer needs to be purely focused on that use case

5) It must also be resistant to change, and resilient in the face of adversarial attacks

None of these qualities have to do with supply

Bitcoin delivers a vastly superior approach in all of these areas, and still would even if it had 2% yearly inflation

6) Focusing on the finite supply of BTC opens the door to attacks by anyone who can argue for a deflationary supply

Is SAFEMOON more valuable than BTC because it's actively deflationary?

Of course not

7) Will changing from an inflationary supply to a deflationary supply benefit the price of ETH?

Sure, any asset would benefit from that

Does that make ETH a superior monetary good?

Absolutley not

8) We need to ensure that new entrants, from retail to instiutional see the value in Bitcoin as far more than it's finite supply

Bitcoins key qualities cannot be replicated by ETH

We need to communicate those points clearly, and get rid of this fixation on supply