I think we're largely on the same page, I'm a Hodler. I agree with the last two paragraphs. Its just the caveat of a certain percentage of people always wanting more "bang for their buck" without the cost of time.

Addressing your points:

(1) Quality of life improves and everything gets cheaper (deflation) on a BTC standard, though there will still be Capital Markets (Bonds and Equities bought/sold, except priced in BTC).These Capital Markets are an emergent feature of Capitalistic Economies. Economic calculations are difficult, likely more difficult on a BTC Standard due to a more robust economic infrastructure and the Hard Money that is BTC.
    People will want to invest in those markets, admittingly a smaller percentage of the population due to a deflationary Bitcoin Standard. Regardless there will be funds to address the demand for delegation of effective economic calculation in the Capital Markets.
    You are right, there isn't a need to invest in broad securities/bonds. We can tell from what is known of situations like BlockFi, people will loan out their Bitcoin for a Bitcoin return (regardless of the actual yield). The same can be said for buying securities priced in Bitcoin for a Bitcoin dividend.

(2) As long as there are private companies wanting more funding through selling a portion of their equity, and Capital Markets to facilitate, there will always be exits.

(3) There was already a concession on the current normalized "VC" practice of pump and dump being drastically lowered. Anyone who is not Economically literate will still have a non-zero probability of buying the scheme and get rug pulled.
    A company being "asset light" doesn't mean its analogous to POS Cryptos. The ownership is centralized though it doesn't mean that the company is POS or worthless, just means it shouldn't be used as a money analogue due to counterparty risk.
    Company ownership is POW, stock splits or issuance of stocks are not the same as centralized cryptos issuing newly minted tokens; Cryptos are companies attempting to be digital banks. Compared to actual R&D, austerity, and meeting a market demand. Digital Banks are is not the same as a general company attempting to make a product or service at a profit.
   Pre-IPO companies w/o revenue numbers and being propped up by low interest rate loans and hype marketing are POS. An "asset light" flower shop is not POS if its operating at a profit and not fraudulent.

(4) Centralization and POW Economies are not mutually exclusive. There seems to be a mix up on the difference between Govt intervention in the markets creating monopolies and a company of 1k employees being more efficient than smaller companies at certain things due to economies of scale.
    Big this or Big that is only sustainable through Govt intervention, otherwise they'd go bust and assets get liquidated. Every company is centralized, and I have not seen a DAO that has worked.


    I agree that the practice of "VC" is not performing as intended, and the market for those services will exist as long as there is a demand. As long as there are people who have a more than comfortable amount of savings, there will be a demand. Regardless of a Fiat or Bitcoin standard.

    Bitcoin is a savings technology, and people won't have to preserve their purchasing power in Capital Markets. This does not negate the fact that there will still be a demand for Capital Markets.