Thank you for your clarifications. I think we are mostly on the same page. In fact I agree with just about everything you wrote here! The only caveat is that I think non transacting nodes still have voting power. To what degree is uncertain.

You could be HODLing a block reward for decades without making a transaction. However you would likely run a node and vote through the software you decide to run and seemingly just be another number in the graph. I suppose you could argue that the block reward is technically a transaction. Is HODLing technically transacting? How many transactions are necessary to enforce the consensus? 1? more? Can someone support and enforce Bitcoin without actually using it via a transaction? Could a person living with generational wealth like the idea and run a node just to support what Bitcoin represents for the world without actually accepting Bitcoin since they have no personal economic need for it?

I don't think transacting is necessary to have a say or enforce the rules. I agree that the raw numbers don't necessarily determine consensus but they are a useful metric and could signal general consensus. Consensus is not black and white nor easily measurable. Its very perplexing and fascinating.

Thank you for your insights. Definitely some interesting threads to investigate here. The rabbit hole just keeps going and I love it =)