In our article, we explicitly laid out the criteria that would falsify the Bitcoin power law, either in the past or in the future.

But falsification in the future would not mean that Bitcoin was never a power-law system. That is an important distinction.
At this point, given that the work has passed peer review, it is a scientific result that Bitcoin has displayed scale-invariant properties for 17 years. Scale invariance is the core property of a power law. The question is not whether Bitcoin has behaved this way historically. The question is whether it will continue to do so.
If Bitcoin stops following the power law, there are scientifically valid ways to determine that. Those are the kinds of criteria we described in the article: sustained structural deviations, breakdown of the long-term exponent, persistent failure to recover toward the scaling trend, and other similar tests.
The “floor” everybody discusses is actually an anomaly. It sits roughly one sigma below the trend line, which is surprisingly tight given Bitcoin’s normal historical variability.
So we are very far from saying that the power law is broken. That claim only makes sense if you understand the actual mathematics behind the model, not if you are just looking at a single support line and treating it as the whole theory.
P. S. Notice the "floor" mentioned in the article is a 3 sigma floor (that is a order of magnitude away from the trend line as it should be for a scaling phenomenon).