"Technologically best" is not a great standard. Whatever blockchain you identify as "best tech" can just be literally copied or forked, and the new chain with 0 track record is equally technically good.

Having said that, best for what? There are different blockchains that have some feature that distinguishes them from the rest, and if that feature is the standard, they'd be the best. Should everybody abandon whatever the top blockchain is every time a new project comes out that is "better"?

ETH is good. It was the first to do what it does, has a large number of qualified developers, and lots of nodes. As you say, cheaper, faster, etc. blockchains are now out there--but what's that to all the dApps built on ETH? There's a lot of inertia and human effort tied up in ETH smart contracts. And what if another new generation comes out next year even faster, smarter, cheaper, etc? Or should we go with L2s? Or chains cross-compatible with other chains? Or focus on bridges?

In the end, ETHs value has a lot to do with being first. It has a track record. Millions have found it reliable. Hackers have had at it. Legal jurisdictions have tolerated it. Any clone has a lesser track record. People are more inclined to trust such a blockchain than something shiny and new where they'd have to research the premine and inflation and developers and see if there are any new vulnerabilities that snuck into the code.

Bitcoin for money and Ethereum for computing do pretty good against the basic requirements for money or computing. People like using what everybody uses. Other chains may end up displacing BTC and ETH, but thousands have tried and failed--it won't be simply because something with better tech, speed, etc. came along.