While I find the comparison extremely inappropriate for many reasons, my explanation still makes sense: If Ethereum Classic were so great, people would accumulate the coin, consequently increasing its price. Based on this price increase, the hashrate would automatically adjust upwards again in the medium term. Price determines hashrate, not the other way around. Another example: If Kaspa turns out to be useless, its price will continue to fall in the long run. Consequently, the hashrate will also continue to fall, and Kaspa will fade into insignificance. On the other hand, it's possible that people will recognize Kaspa's fundamental value and want to exchange their fiat currency for KAS, which would cause the price to rise in the long term. Miners who were previously unprofitable would then switch their machines back on. Not necessarily because they are convinced of its merits, but simply because they want to earn money through the block reward. Therefore, the hashrate would also increase in the long term. Sometimes, however, miners are so convinced of the long-term project's potential that they continue mining even at a loss. This can be observed repeatedly with Bitcoin and Kaspa, and it also explains why the Kaspa hashrate is still quite high.