Encryption - Even Bitcoin hardforks have improved encryption, such as ZCash - and guess what, they are moving to PoS like any smart project leaders would, which also has better encryption (depending on the project).

Power costs are never a good thing. I mined 100% renewable until ETH went PoS and did well. At the end of the day it's unnecessary and money spent on power and equipment you think will reinforce the industry when that equipment is heading to landfills could be better spent on more crypto. This is so pathetically true, miners actually mine at a loss - and a lot of it is bad for the environment.

Governance - I know I have a point because I know what a project with active governance looks like and it isn't a stalemate with hardforks.

Lightning node - A good chain doesn't need this feature to be external, nor can you rely on external software. That's a flawed way of viewing a positive where there is a negative. All it does for the positive is move assets faster than Bitcoin can, despite having a multitude of cryptocurrencies that go A to B for less than a penny in about a second.

Bitcoin being the "Coca-Cola" of crypto. Well, even Coca-Cola has changed a lot over the years. This mainly threatens the hard forks, eventually, people will break the correlation with Bitcoin in the alt market because it's foolish and modern projects will naturally take sway over time.

Gold and silver are required elements for every industry. Bitcoin could go tits up tomorrow and it wouldn't affect anything but a tiny % of the financial sector.

Miners at the end = there won't be any money in it, hence all your ASICS and old GPUs heading to landfills and no more $ to be made for miners because Bitcoin scaling won't allow the level of congestion required to turn a profit.