I was just revisiting the definition of the number $e$ in Section 4.3 of Zbigniew Nitecki's Calculus Deconstructed. I'll start by saying I really like his ground-up development of the exponential and logarithmic functions in Section 3.6, establishing that the exponential function defined over the rationals for any positive real base has a removable discontinuity at each irrational number, which allows it to be well-defined over the reals as the limits of sequences over the domain of rationals.
In Section 4.3, where he develops the derivatives of exponentials and logarithms, for any $b>0$ we are given the definition of the function $\varphi_b$ on $(-\infty,0)\cup(0,\infty)$ as $\varphi_b(x) = \frac{b^x-1}{x},$ so that $\left.\frac{\mathrm d b^x}{\mathrm d x}\right\rvert_{x=0} = \lim_{x\to 0} \varphi_b(x),$ if this limit exists, and the following:
Lemma 4.3.1. For any $b > 0$ and any $a\in(-\infty,\infty),$ $\left.\frac{\mathrm d b^x}{\mathrm d x}\right\rvert_{x=a} = b^a \left(\left.\frac{\mathrm d b^x}{\mathrm d x}\right\rvert_{x=0}\right)= b^a \lim_{x\to 0} \varphi_b(x),$ provided that the limit exists.
Remark 4.3.2. The function $\varphi_b$ is positive if $b>1$ and negative if $0<b<1$.
Lemma 4.3.3. For $b>1$ and $n$ any nonzero integer, $\frac{b^{n+1}-1}{b^n-1} \geq \frac{n+1}{n}.$ The inequality is strict for $n\neq -1.$
Lemma 4.3.4 For every positive $b\neq 1,$ $\varphi_b$ is strictly increasing on its natural domain $(-\infty,0)\cup(0,\infty)$.
Corollary 4.3.5. For each $b>0,$ the limit $\psi(b)=\left.\frac{\mathrm d b^x}{\mathrm d x}\right\rvert_{x=0}=\lim_{x\to 0} \varphi_b(x)$ exists, and hence $f(x)=b^x$ is differentiable everywhere, with derivative at $x=a$ given by $\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm d x}[b^x] = \psi(b)\cdot b^x.$
Lemma 4.3.6.
For $b>1,$ $\psi(b)>0,$ while for $0<b<1,$ $\psi(b) < 0.$
For any $b>0$ and $r\in\mathbb R,$ $\psi(b^r) = r\psi(b).$ In particular, there exists a value of $b$ for which $\psi(b)=1.$
Definition 4.3.7. $e$ is the unique number satisfying $\lim_{h\to 0} \frac{e^h-1}{h}=1.$
I noticed that while Lemma 4.3.6 establishes the existence of a base for the exponential function with derivative $1$ at $x=0$, using the lemma with any base greater than $1,$ for example taking the base of $2,$ so we have from part 1 that $\psi(2) > 0,$ and so setting $r = 1/\psi(2)$ we then have from part 2 that $\psi(2^r)=r\psi(2)=1,$ how do we know this is the only value for which $\psi$ is $1$?