A very different number for a 51% attack against a completely different consensus mechanism does not seem like it should provoke skepticism. Especially since re

A very different number for a 51% attack against a completely different consensus mechanism does not seem like it should provoke skepticism. Especially since resistance against 51% attacks is a specific benefit of that new mechanism. Are you proposing that the website plops down that $15B number for a consensus mechanism that isn't even operational yet? (I think there are other things that are misleading, notably that it measures what Nicehash could do, but not all of its capacity is actually for rent at any given time.)