(1) Mesores Hashas (in the margin of the Gemara) cites the Yalkut that R. Akiva maintains that b'Chol Me'odecha is not necessary to teach that one must give all one's money for Hash-m, because if one must give one's life then one certainly one must give all one's money. Therefore b'Chol Me'odecha teaches something else: that whatever "Midah" (measurement or attribute) that Hash-m measures out to you, one should accept it whether it is good or bad. One should be happy with whatever Hash-m gives you. (Elsewhere in Chazal we find that one should be "Modeh" - which is similar to the word Me'odecha - i.e. one should thank Hash-m very much for whatever he does for you.)

(2) It seems to me that according to the above one can say that R. Akiva does not account of the person whose money is more valuable to him than his soul (unlike R. Eliezer) because such an attitiude makes no sense since life is clearly more important than all the money in the world. Since b'Chol Me'odecha is not necessary to teach this it must be needed to teach something else: to accept everything Hash-m measures out.

[See also Maharsha who writes that in fact there is no dispute between R.Akiva and R. Eliezer, but rather that R.Akiva is merely explaining what R. Eliezer taught that one must give one's soul: that it is not sufficient merely to make all the effort one can with one's soul, but one also actually has to give up one's life.

In contrast the Vilna Gaon, in Imrei Noam, explains that there is a dispute between R.Eliezer and R. Akiva - that in fact R. Eliezer maintains that one only has to make the utmost effort for Hash-m but not give up one's life, whilst R. Akiva maintains that one must sacrifice one's life also. This is why the Gemara relates how R. Akiva sacrificed his life for Hash-m. His students believed that it was not actually necessary to give up his life (because they learnt like R. Eliezer), but R. Akiva replied that for all of his life he had taught that one must even give up his life.]

KOL TUV

D. Bloom