This is a good point - that we trade political risk for technical risk, e.g. will sha256 be broken, will quantum computing break ECC, or will a well funded acto

This is a good point - that we trade political risk for technical risk, e.g. will sha256 be broken, will quantum computing break ECC, or will a well funded actor launch a 51% attack or empty block attack on the network. These are the big known-unknowns. In these cases, ideally a hard fork would be able to maneuver the network out of the way of the technical vulnerability in time. Less ideally, there's just the fact that crypto protocols are now so diversified in terms of hashing algos, PoW algos, and alternative consensus mechanisms (e.g PoS, zk's, etc), active chains, and governance models, that successfully knocking out the majority of them, nevermind all of them, would be almost impossible. But this is obviously less than ideal in that now you have an even more complex situation: where you are constantly hedging your savings in multiple tokens, and how do you value one versus the other? Simply in its blue-horizon cryptographic development threat model? popularity? ease of use? >the crypto ecosystem is unable to use force. I'd argue the crypto ecosystem has been building "soft power" with web3. To the extant one would argue "it's a scam" is directly proportional to the success of its "propaganda" agencies.