Its a pair of long-term hypothetical what-ifs, as I disclaimed not proposing anything, though its interesting to observe that if there was enough motivation and self-interest, there are things the bitcoin super-majority could hypothetically do.  Some people find confidence from long-term possibilities that bitcoin can technically and even economically adapt without violating its social contract.  (Otherwise these people reject bitcoin because of projected hypothetical end-game problems).

A) could volatility be damped by dual-retargetting (difficulty & reward/block) and

B) could electrical cost be reduced if security subsidy overshot or reached scaling limits (shortage of reasonable power).  

Massive electrical demands can create economies of scale, where politically connected people can get power.

We might see government wealth funds holding bitcoin (if thats not already the case) and/or governments taking strategic mining positions (possibly small loss making with subsidised power) within a few years - who knows!  If your country (or company, bank etc) depends on the secure operation and decentralisation you may want to participate to counter-act centralisation power-grabs from other countries.

Bitcoin is a better gold, and gold served as the predominant world currency for 6000 years.  The current debt based fractional fiat currency has its own seemingly inherent limitations.  Who knows, maybe it'll happen that bitcoin continues to grow in this kind of role.

Adam