... "And a runner-up has never been crowned just because th…

Good day, and thank you — but you've skipped the only question that matters, so let me ask it.
Who said BSV is the runner-up?
Your whole point rests on it. "When the leader falls, the runner-up gets crowned." Fine. But that assumes BSV is the runner-up, the next in line, the one waiting to inherit. And who decided that?
It's not second by price — it's nowhere near it. Not second by use, by adoption, by name, by anything you can actually measure. So before we even talk about whether a fallen leader hands the crown over, you've got to show me BSV is the one standing next in the queue. And it isn't. It isn't second. It isn't third. It isn't in the line at all.
If Bitcoin fell tomorrow, nothing makes BSV next. That's not a crown waiting to be inherited. That's just hoping the king dies and assuming you're the prince.
Build thinkers, not followers.

Interesting discussion
Bitcoin (BTC), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), and Bitcoin SV (BSV) are the most prominent blockchains that use the SHA-256 hashing algorithm for their Proof-of-Work consensus mechanisms
The concept of next in line ought to include which version of Bitcoin could be most profitable to mine
Presently BTC is the most profitable to mine because of the spot price at which it trades, not because of transactions
Can BTC continue to attract miners into the future ?
Can one of the contenders generate enough on-chain transaction revenue to take hash rate from BTC
BCH could attract enough spot price appreciation and on-chain revenue to challenge BTC
BSV could also attract spot price appreciation and perhaps so much on-chain revenue as to make the other chains not worth mining
I think it's important to consider that BTC has to eventually increase transaction costs or increase the supply