OP,
I regret failing to give my feedback soon enough but I have something to share regarding your article.

First and foremost, it is very important to keep in mind that bitcoin is in a transient phase in which it has not fulfilled its eventual mission: changing the world and establishing a new fiat-free ecosystem: bitcoin ecosystem. IOW, this term refers to something that is a work in progress, something that is not realized, yet. The confusion begins right from here, because as long as the bitcoin ecosystem is not realized one may consider every single entity that is somehow 'related' to bitcoin as a part of it, a totally wrong assumption that introduces alien entities which typically deserve to be categorized as parasite.

For instance, exchanges are related to bitcoin, they claim and apply influence heavily on centralized/scam projects like Ethereum which you used as an example (and I'll come to this example later) as well, but the whole phenomenon is just a parasite for a simple and straight reason: In the future real bitcoin ecosystem, there will be no room for a concept such as 'bitcoin price', hence no room for what makes exchanges such a heavyweight player.  

Generally speaking, I think it is an obligation for any commentator, whenever it comes to such issues, to explicitly remind the transient nature of what bitcoin is going through currently and how this transience affects every single aspect of its status because without such a measure we will be lost in a jungle of raw evidence.

I also need to stress that it would be a huge mistake to compare bitcoin with centralized scam driven projects like Ethereum, no matter what their so-called 'market cap' (another alien concept) may be. For Ethereum, other than the ridiculously centralized approach its "owners" have followed for hard forks through the years, its vulnerability to centralization has much deeper roots in Turing Complete smart contracts which allows corporates and deep pocket token publishers to practically decide the future of the forks. The shameful transition to PoW, aka "The Merge" proved how powerful such entities are.

Centralization in cryptocurrency is ways more dangerous than almost any other form of concentration of power, as in this field it is much easier to violate the same contract that granted them this power. A centralized banking system, for instance, is practically bound by regulations and laws that are not easily applicable to an entity behind a so-called "pegged token" such as USDT.

Conclusively, I suggest not to put shady technologies such as Ethereum and other smart contract based blockchains in the same class with bitcoin, as they introduce a very active and dominating source of wild power.
To have a better understanding, just check how brutally and unlawfully this factor undermined the obvious and legal rights of miners to keep maintaining the PoW chain (note, it was VB gang, aka the Foundation, that forked off from the legacy PoW chain) and they've played this role without feeling any accountability about their obvious violation of the same contract that has made them rich. It is literally a breach of contract, because the contract has been deployed on the legacy chain and not the Proof of Sh*t fork. If the corporates have not such an unlimited power, either the shameful transition to PoW would have never been supported, or they would have introduced new tokens on the forked chain, allowing their users to freely migrate there. Instead, what happened was an embarrassing practice of behind the doors lobbying and brutally enforcing tens of thousands of miners out of the business. Ethereum and other smart contract based environments are such a poisonous environment, absolutely not entitled to be compared in any sense with bitcoin.