To me, it reads like you are trying to “reason away” a claim about a fundamental reality; and that is not what “objective” as a word itself means. To say mathematical language is not an “objective” language in comparison to other languages is nonsensical, because how would computers ever work if that were not the case?

How can a blockchain network not itself be an “objective” framework that all computers agree on?

To me; it reads as if your usage of the word “objective” is solely in relational to some fundamental reality when objective only has meaning at all when compared with “subjective”.

There are a million ways to express my love for her, my attraction to her, my admiration OF her, but if I need to count how many times her eyes have darted my way, I can only count two. 1 plus 1 equals 2 is something that subjective views find agreement on, and therefore; it’s “objective” in relation to what my experience is.

Objective only refers to “shared” information that is environmental. It functions as if it is a deeper reality or absolute, but doesn’t need to be for it to work and function.

If it is the case that there is a deeper fundamental reality than what all eyes can see naturally; then it’s equally obscure to all of us.

Subjective = personal information
Objective = shared information

It doesn’t need to make any other “claim” than that.