ETHbenezer ScrewJ.eth

the Ethereum and ETH hate stems from the fact that you cannot replicate its properties you can larp but you cannot copy nor do it better it’s all about money and competition

How is Hyperliquid supposed to survive long term when Lighter exists as a better platform on Ethereum with no fees??? No one can give any legitimate reason.

There’s now supposedly 121 million ETH (unverifiable), it keeps increasing with no limit

Have been reading this carefully and want to share a few honest questions. Saying this with respect, from someone who's been holding ETH for years, and as honest thinking out loud rather than a critique. If the EF is as confident as this suggests, and I share that confidence in the network itself, there's still something I can't quite reconcile. A lot of people who built on Ethereum or have held ETH for years no longer have clarity on the role of ETH as an asset going forward. People who viscerally don't want to sell, but honestly can't find solid reasons to keep holding instead of rotating. So either ETH is winning more clearly than it feels from where most of us sit, or there's a real gap between how the EF sees the future and how that gets translated into a thesis for the token. Ethereum the network is still by far the best: most decentralized, best community, deep work on privacy and scalability, never down once. The question today is not whether Ethereum the network wins. I think most of us believe it does. The question is whether ETH the asset captures that win, and that's where it gets less obvious. A few things on that. 1) Post-Dencun, value capture shifted. The roadmap moved activity to L2s, which is great for users, but L1 fee accrual got thinner. Base generates billions in revenue for Coinbase; the equivalent flow back to ETH holders is much smaller. The "ultrasound money" framing quietly inverted, with staking issuance outpacing burn most weeks now. None of that means Ethereum is losing. It means the mechanism by which network success becomes ETH price has to be re-explained. 2) Crypto's killer app turned out to be stablecoins, and the value goes to the issuers, not to the L1 they run on. Tether and Circle take the float. And now Tempo (Stripe + Paradigm) and Arc (Circle) are coming online, both designed so that flow doesn't have to pass through Ethereum. That deserves an answer. 3) At the institutional level, the story is harder to carry than it should be. BTC has one clean line: digital gold, SoV. ETH has to be a productive asset, plus ultrasound money, plus global computer, plus restaking yield, plus economic bandwidth, all at the same time. When institutions try to model it, they don't really know whether to price it as a bond, an equity, or a commodity. Tom Lee, BMNR and Etherealize are doing real work pushing the story in Wall Street rooms and they deserve credit for it. But it isn't landing yet at the scale that would move the asset, and that is not on them. It's a signal that the message itself needs sharper framing further upstream. 4) On RWA, I want to push back on the usual reassurance, the "when RWA breaks out, ETH benefits by default" line. RWA is not a future event, it's already happening. BUIDL, Ondo, Centrifuge, BlackRock's tokenized funds, most of it is on Ethereum or Ethereum L2s and Ethereum is winning the share. The issue is not whether RWA shows up. The issue is that TVL on its own doesn't move the price of ETH. Narrative does. And the narrative hasn't compounded into asset demand yet, even with the real adoption underneath. That gap is the whole problem. 5) There's also been some unbundling of the "global computer". Perps moved to Hyperliquid, NFTs largely to Solana, payments to dedicated chains. What's living on Ethereum mainnet today is RWA, blue-chip DeFi (Aave, Sky, Morpho), and settlement. A great business, just a more focused one than what was sold a few years ago. 6) And, said gently, maybe the sharpest piece: time horizon mismatch. The EF thinks in post-quantum, credible neutrality, 50-year uptime. That is exactly right for Ethereum the network. But holders are pricing 2 to 5 year cycles. "Hold for 30 years until we're the global economic hub" is a beautiful belief, but it is not an investable thesis. The investable thesis is what's missing. None of this is a sell call to anyone else. But to be honest about where I personally landed: I rotated part of my ETH into BTC on december. I didn't want to. Over a 2 year window I see less uncertainty in BTC than I see beta in ETH, and absent a clearer asset-level thesis I couldn't justify holding the same size. The point is humbler than it sounds. If Ethereum's roadmap and dominance are as strong as the EF believes, and I think they are, then what's missing is not engineering and it's not adoption. It's a clear, repeatable, digestible line of communication that translates all of that network value back into ETH as an asset, in a way the community and investors can actually hold on to. The moment we get that line, a lot of the noise goes quiet. And honestly, the moment we get that line, I rotate back. But somebody really has to draw it.