The Original S2F model is likely flawed, and should be correctly replaced by the S2F-G model.

Can you demonstrate that your new model is not also flawed?

I very much doubt it.

As I have said in other threads on the subject, it does not seem a very scientific attitude to set up a model that when it is disproved by the data, instead of considering the model as false, you reformulate it, and if the data falsify the new formulation, you reformulate it again.

Small but critical clarification: Even if the data only until 2019 is taken into account, the Stock and Flow exponents still turn out to be ~5 and ~2 respectively, as per the Generalized Stock-to-Flow (S2F-G) model! In other words, I'm NOT "reformulating" the model with new data, rather I'm introducing a NEW MODEL from scratch, or a MODIFIED MODEL *EQUATION*, which fits the existing data in an entirely novel manner.

It will be automatically demonstrated when the BTC price hits $100K by 2025, but does not exceed $400K before 2028. Quoting from the paper:

"A limit of $400K is suggested to break the tie for the 2024–28 cycle — if the cycle peak exceeds $400K, then the Original Model is right; if not, the Generalized Model wins!"

The fact that one or a few data coincide with the theory does not verify it. The only thing that can be assured is that for the moment it is not false, and that it is gaining plausibility.

The original S2F also appeared to have been demonstrated, until the data falsified it.

As I mentioned above, in spite of taking into account the same data as S2F (up to 2019), the S2F-G still makes different predictions. Of course, I can give a window for the falsification of my model: If the peak BTC Price lies outside of $100K-$400K range during the period 2024-28, then my model will be broken. I have confidence that S2F-G will prevail!