If you are really a researcher, and I doubt it, then you should make at least a small effort to prove the plausibility of your assumptions. Your assumption is extremely speculative.

The PoS/PoW debate is not new at all but exists since 2012. PoS has very distinct characteristics than PoW. PoS depends heavily on "weak subjectivity", this means of the ability of the user to connect to a trusted node to know the currently valid list of validators. So BFT limitations are fully in force. While PoW is not 100% "neutral" in this regard it's still much easier for an user to find the longest chain in an environment where many nodes try to eclipse attack this user, because a lot of attack vectors on PoS simply don't work on PoW.

I have defended PoS in many debates in the past and still think it has some merits, but after years of discussion my opinion now is that PoW is (unfortunately) superior in most aspects.

We could even say that "the market has decided" that PoW is superior because Bitcoin is still #1 by a wide margin, after 12 years of PoW/PoS debate. The small amount of successful PoW altcoins is not contradicting this, because PoW tends very much to a single "winner" due to the 51% attack threat for smaller blockchains. So it's reasonable for altcoins to adopt PoS because it provides reasonable security, as a tradeoff to less centralization and the "weak subjectivity" problem.

If computer science advances and finds out that PoS can work without weak subjectivity and thus the PoW superiority paradigm is wrong (probability is very low), and also as an absolute last resort "mitigation strategy" against any large scale 51% attack, Bitcoin could simply change to PoS after the attack (i.e. creating a new chain based on a snapshot based of the old chain 1 block before the attack). This would perhaps be a "capitulation" or assuming that PoW is inferior and could make it lose some value, but a large part of the Bitcoin ecosystem would be able to be retained. Thus it is likely that Ethereum folks would not be able to profit from the attack at all. They would perhaps even be seen as pariahs of the blockchain world and Solana could take over or so

Yes, I'm speculating wildly now myself, but you have not done different in this thread. As a "researcher", you should not speculate but try to find evidence, and you should be neutral regarding the result, not trying to prove a point. I would even say that in this thread you're not behaving like a researcher but like a random Ethereum shill.

In this reply you argumented that Bitcoin (whales) would not attack Ethereum because it could only profit from a low "market share". For smaller PoS coins, the opposite would be true. Several whales of distinct "Ethereum killer" chains could even unite to take Ethereum's throne.

And I repeat: "Market cap" is not the same as "sales".