And (perhaps more importantly) Ed25519 does not require a new random number on each subsequent signature, thus is deemed to less vulnerable to a faulty random number generator (or injection of virus thereof in the operating system).
Is this advantage of Ed25519 over Secp256k1 negated assuming perfect compliance in avoiding BTC address reuse (since if a faulty RNG was used the balance of the at risk address would already be 0 after every transaction)?