> You're confused. Bitcoin does not have such fees
This is an Ethereum thread, is it not?
> Ethereum, while it does have such fees, is moving to proof-of-stake and the energy argument no longer holds up.
Um, excuse me, Ethereum very much has these fees still, so the argument is extremely valid in the moment; additionally, this "proof of stake" movement was meant to occur in 2019 no? They are 3 years late and at best 1/3 complete, 9 years of delay sounds about right - this space is full of speculation and grifters treating that speculation as truth to grift.
> There are numerous non-PoW chains
That have extremely unstable financial valuations, destroying the credibility of them as alternatives to existing financial systems.
Your arguments hold no water, they require hypothetical futures and blatantly false things to hold, so why are you making them?
> This is the only way we know how to avoid double-spending in a trustless, permission-less way
The value prop of this is 0 today. Maybe it's even a net negative on the world, with the transactions on these chains having an extremely significant scam rate while also using more energy than entire mid-sized countries do to literally exist. You need to justify why "trustless and permissionless" are important before you can just say "we need systems with these properties!". I can only feel that you are financially deep into these systems and rationalizing to hold your position, you seem like you'd be perfectly capable of constructing good arguments when not emotionally compromised by the topic.