Someone was asking if yet another blockchain working with the Clarity Act alongsude the economic nodes is a good thing.
All I can say is look to history for guidance. No scientific precision is required to determine what will happen in general - the possibility of an oligopoly increases. Yes, who gets to keep the goodies in detail - the distribution of any new wealth, is harder to access. All we know is the freebies will be received by those taking part, not the whole of the free trading economic world.
The economic nodes would increase their authority over bitcoin and their part in the spoils. Not saying this is good or bad. Just pointing at the probability.
Bitcoin SV supporters may need to consider the possibility that even just the miner nodes, even when only say 5 are usefully creating blocks and mean anything important to the ledger, is tantamount to an oligopoly. Let alone the economic entities outside of block creation taking part overall here.
Why?
First as stated above, the goodies only get distributed to this with power withing the oligopoly. Next, a few nodes are all that's needed to compete and add to the ledger with bitcoin. These must inevitably be very large costly businesses. Which means by their huge size they have to a certain extent have cornered the market, in spite of competing with each other - the small innovators can no longer get a look in even if they can do a much better job as miners creating blocks. The hash power corners the market. Cornering a market forms a monopoly to the extent smaller players cannot get in on even terms. And affects price and quality directly. So a large part of the profits of that monopoly are an economic rent. Rent Seeking.
Not saying this is good or bad either. Am asking for sensible people to enter into a dialogue on it.
Why not start at the most extreme extent to make the point more quickly?
Imagine a state actor printed enough money to build several data centres bigger than anything Mr. Musk has ever done? Say just 3, enough for contingency and security. With more than 51% of the hash power of say BTC.
Not to fraudulently take over the network, reorg and double spend. Simply to get ALL the business. This is a silly example but it sets an extreme case as a starting point to move back from.
Why would this be any different to 3 big miners controlling the network, even without colluding, it would be implicit.