Well, I agree with the fact that TPS is kinda gimmicky, most of these TPS are also lab test being held under controlled condition. In production, nobody knows if the TPS can be consistent and there's no validator outage.
The TON case was also funny, the blockchain itself hailed as the best blockchain in term of scalability only for it to froze over airdrop claiming event.
To be honest, most of altcoins are like that, just temporary hype until market maker and VC cashed out, then it went downhill from there.
Only something like BTC where holders are truly decentralized that can retain price and even growing parabolic.
That's the point. So many projects claim to have high TPS, but they fail once they're put up to the test in the real world. The large number of TPS processed are only done in a lab setting like you've said. But the real deal comes when the Blockchain is put under stress in a public setting. I've read somewhere that the more nodes there are on the network, the more latency there will be, effectively undermining the Blockchain's performance. It's why a chain like EOS (now rebranded to "Vaulta") only has 21 validators on the network.
I don't think SUI would be any different than APTOS, TON, or even HBAR in terms of network performance. Even SOL has its own set of limitations. My guess is that Solana will remain the leading coin of its kind after Ethereum. Neither SUI, APTOS, nor the other ones mentioned will be able to compete against it. Why focus on "killing" SOL, though? Isn't that the same as "killing" ETH? We should move past this and focus on working together to make crypto land a better place. The future of crypto is interoperability. This means cross-chain bridges, atomic swaps, and whatnot. Who knows where SUI will be in the long run?