_Objectively_ better alternatives to Bitcoin are around for at least the last five years.

No one can realistically argue that it's better to have a system use 6 million times more energy, cost infinitely more, and require waiting 16 minutes for a confirmation compared to less than a second.

"The market" is chock-full of inertia, vested interests, propaganda, sunk costs, and technical ignorance. There are literally thousands of cryptocurrencies - and the majority are scams. What has "the market" done to protect people?

I say all this to do my part to improve "the market", but my estimation of the market's ability to efficiently determine its arse from a hole in the ground is low.

Other examples of "the market's efficiency" include tobacco companies responsible for killing millions making bank for decades by fudding science, energy companies fudding data for decades to burn the planet while making billions, monopolies, duopolies, externalised costs, racketeering, collusion, collateral damage, etc etc etc.

If you truly think this way, you're deluding yourself & this is where I stop reading.

Everything has tradeoffs. There's no 'objective' better.

Yes there is.

Every chess move has advantages and disadvantages, yes. But some are objectively better.

Every algorithm has advantages and disadvantages. But some are objectively better.

Believing that nothing can be objectively better than Bitcoin, and calling people who disagree delusional, is less than useful.

I've stated numbers above.

While I appreciate the hilarity of invoking classical economics to justify vague Bitcoin maximalism, we are talking about something 6 million times more energy efficient, with infinitely lower fees, and well over a thousand times faster. It's objectively better on every technical front.

Maybe look up 'efficiency'. If we can achieve the same outcome at different costs, then the method that achieves said outcome incurring the least cost is objectively better than the others.