You are wrong on all three main points that you have asserted.

1- theory that money must be a SoV before it can be a MoE- there is no such theory- not a credible one based on sound reason and historical evidence at least - it is a muddled and confused understanding of the fact that good money must be both a SoV and MoE...and one that suits the speculative commodity narrative that is fundamentally undermining Bitcoins primary stated purpose of being a P2P payments protocol. 2- You seem to believe that an attack on the mining front is the only way to undermine the protocol- this is simply untrue. While if a nation state (or any other entity) wanted to apply a 51% attack your understanding is correct, this is not the only way the protocol can be attacked. There are other ways. Here is just one.

Another would be an Order 6102฿ ban on private custody. Another would be a combination of tax rules and KYC combined with arbitrarily defining Bitcoin as a commodity while allowing its use as a speculative commodity ( and thus via ETFs and other routes enabling growing institutional custody (Coinbase now holds over 2.2 million Bitcoins)) - this is in fact exactly what has happened already and not only undermines the protocol as a P2P payments protocol but also prepares perfectly for an order 6102฿ ban on private custody in several ways which you can deduce for yourself. 3- See the link above where Andreas Antopolous explains how custody including declared right to determine which fork to accept definitively does provide considerable scope for manipulation and alteration of the protocol.

I'm curious as to how you have remained so ignorant of all these factors and/or whether you can refute any of them, or whether as I would assert, almost the entire community has been blinded by the price goes up speculative commodity narrative greed that is central to enabling the capture and control of Bitcoin by bankers and governments.

Perhaps anything that does not support the speculative commodity narrative is simply ignored.