Bankless - Ethereum’s Biggest Mistake (and How to Fix It) | Sam Kazemian

Episode Date: April 28, 2025

Ethereum has achieved groundbreaking technological success, but has it failed to properly define ETH the asset? In this episode, Frax founder Sam Kazemian joins us to discuss what he believes is Ethereum’s biggest mistake: confusing the ETH asset with Ethereum the technology. Sam argues that post-EIP-1559 and Proof of Stake, ETH unintentionally shifted toward a discounted cash flow (DCF) valuation model, undermining its potential as a commodity-like store of value. We explore how the Ethereum community can reclaim a stronger narrative around ETH and why social consensus — not just tech — determines an asset’s destiny. ------ 📣SPOTIFY PREMIUM RSS FEED | USE CODE: SPOTIFY24 https://bankless.cc/spotify-premium ------ BANKLESS SPONSOR TOOLS: 🪙FRAX | SELF SUFFICIENT DeFi https://bankless.cc/Frax 🦄UNISWAP | SWAP ON UNICHAIN https://bankless.cc/unichain 🌐SELF | PROVE YOUR SELF https://bankless.cc/Self 🛞MANTLE | MODULAR LAYER 2 NETWORK https://bankless.cc/Mantle 🏦INFINEX | THE CRYPTO-EVERYTHING APP https://bankless.cc/Infinex ------ TIMESTAMPS 0:00 Intro 4:43 Classifying ETH 17:50 ETH/BTC Collapse 33:39 ETH Revenues 44:35 Blue-Money Gospel 53:44 What ETH Needs 1:10:08 ETH Internet Bond Narrative 1:19:49 Final Thoughts ------ RESOURCES Sam Kazemian https://x.com/samkazemian Blue-Money Gospel https://x.com/RyanSAdams/status/1915874994514452763 ------ Not financial or tax advice. See our investment disclosures here: https://www.bankless.com/disclosures⁠

If we don't make sure that Ethereum is used as store of value, and two, if we don't make sure that Ethereum, the technology, right, the settlement layer is not this fundamental ledger we've lost. Welcome to Bankless. We explore the frontier of internet money and internet finance. Today on bankless, we're exploring the topic of ETH, the asset. How should it be positioned? How do we talk about ETH? How should we understand it? These conversations, of course, about Ether are not new, but the one you are going to hear today from Sam Kazanian pitches a specific and different path for the conversation around Heath than what the Ethereum community has been discussing for the past few years. Sam thinks that any and all things related to valuing Heath as a DCF, a discounted cash flow model, is bad, and we should stop doing it immediately. He thinks that we ought to talk about Heath exclusively as a store-of-value commodity money representing a huge cultural solution to the malaise of ETH. ETH's valuation. And any further effort spend on DCFing ETH will only continue to sink the price versus the rest of the market. I find Sam's points that are pretty interesting. I'm going to think about

them more and more over the coming weeks and months. And I think this is a conversation that the Ethereum community ought to have as well. So let's go ahead and get right into this conversation with Sam Kazamian from FRAX. But first, a message from some of these fantastic sponsors that make this show possible. You may have already heard about Infinex. Infinex has, in my opinion, the nicest cross-chain swat. and bridge feature that you will find anywhere. It is called Swidge, Swap and Bridge, and we're gonna show you what it looks like. First, we're gonna log into my Infinex account

with a PASCII. Now, there's no seed phrases in Infinex. This is just a one-click set up with biometric pass keys. But in addition to that, my Infinex account is fully non-custodial. So bam, I just logged in. It was two clicks, and I'm already into my Infinex account. So let's go make a Swidge.

I'm gonna go Swidge my USDC that is on base, and I'm gonna buy Barra chain, which is a completely different chain. So we're going to switch this. I'm going to press that button. And then Infinex is going to execute this order, this cross-chain order for me. And now it is done. But actually, I'm not really feeling bearish anymore. So I'm going from Barra to Penguin to Penguins. I'm going to buy a penguin on Solana. So I'm going from the Barra chain to Solana. See, no transaction signing, no gas to worry about. You just switch across whatever chain that you want with Infinex. That was so easy. Go check out Infinx and try your first switch today. Imagine a world where your day-to-day banking runs on a blockchain. That's exactly what Mantle is building. Powered by a 4-Bron. billion dollar treasury and poised to become the largest sustainable on-chain financial hub. As part of their 2025 expansion, Mantle is introducing three new core innovation pillars that bridge traditional finance with decentralized technology. First is their enhanced indexed fund, aiming for $1 billion in AUM by Q1. It provides optimized exposure to Bitcoin, E, Solana, and USC,

complete with built-in yield opportunities. Next, Mantle banking promises to revolutionize global value transfer through seamless blockchain-powered banking services, bridging crypto into your daily life. The handling Mantle X blends AI with Defi to deliver an intelligent user-friendly experience for everyone. And the best part is that this is all in addition to their already launched products like Mantle Network, ME, and FBTC. Ready to step into the future of finance, follow Mantle on X at Mantle underscore official and join the on-chain revolution today. In the wild west of Defi, stability and innovation are everything, which is why you should check out FRAX Finance. The protocol revolutionizing stable coins, defy, and Rolex. The core of FRAX finance is FRAXUSD, which is backed by BlackRock's in.

institutional biddle fund. Frax designed FraxUSD for besting class yields across defy, T-bills, and carry trade returns all in one. Just head to Frax.com, then stake it to earn some of the best yields in Defy. Want even more? Bridge your FraxUSD over to the Fraxtal Layer 2 for the same yield plus Fractyl points and explore fractal's diverse layer two ecosystem with protocols like Curve, Convex, and more, all rewarding early adopters. Frax isn't just a protocol. It's a digital nation, powered by the FXS token and governed by its global community. acquire FXS through Frax.com or your go-to decks, stake it and help shape Frax Nation's future. Ready to join the forefront of Defy, visit Frax.com now to start earning with FraxUSD and staked

FraxUSD. And for bankless listeners, you can use Frax.com slash R-slash-Bankless when bridging to Fraxel for exclusive Fraxel perks and boosted rewards. Bankless Nation, I'm here with Sam Kesemanian. He's the CEO co-founder of Frax, Frax, U.S.D, Fraxol, the entire Fraxtol bankless banking system on top of... of Ethereum. And I've always appreciated Sam and Frax for a very, like, grounded and first principles position on what money, banking, and finance means. And I think you can see that in how Sam has constructed the Frax ecosystems. Sam, welcome back to Bankless. Always a pleasure, David. Thanks for Adamal.

Sam, okay, so you have been a frequent commentator about ether, the asset, the nature of ether, the asset, and also how the Ethereum community and broadly speaking, we should be branding or positioning ether the asset. Now, there are a lot of conversations going around these days with the declining ETH-BTC ratio, of course, the changing valuation, and there's always been a loose conversation about what to do about ether, right? Is it a non-sovereign store value? Is it a tech stock? Do we have revenues? Do we emphasize those revenues? How do we position this thing that has so many different facets? Maybe I can just throw it to you to kind of set the foundation and establish your kind of pillar of understanding about what you think ether should be what it is

and how you think the Ethereum community should position Ether the asset. Yeah, for sure. So, first of all, I want to just say, like, so I've been involved or like in the Ethereum community since like 2014. I remember signing up for the Ether newsletter when the Ether sale went live and stuff. So I've seen the whole evolution of it and the Dow hack, the Ethereum Classic, Eth, and all that stuff. So I've seen the whole gamut of the entire lifecycle. So I'm well aware. of the history, in fact, it's because of the history that I talk about this. And so the first thing I actually just want to say is there's basically two types of ways to essentially value an asset. And there could be mixed shares, right, all of these different thesis of like triple point asset,

ultrasound money and all this stuff. But generally, from a first principle point of view, there's two types of ways to value an asset. There's the fundamentals view, right? The discounted cash flow, which means the asset represents some claim on some kind of like cash flow, whether the things producing the cash flow or series of smart contracts, group of people working to produce something and sell it. It doesn't matter, right? The asset is essentially equity-like, and that doesn't mean this is like a comment on regulation or anything like that. This has nothing to do with it. It's just the fundamentals, like you said, first principles based approach. That's one type of asset, right? It represents some kind of discounted cash flow.

on future cash flows. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. And the second one that everyone is familiar with as Bitcoin, but also just normally in real life, before crypto, right, is the commodity view of an asset where it does not represent any claim on that because it coherently can't. Literally, if you have gold, it does not represent like a claim on any group of people's work

or anything. It has flows-based, demand-based, you know, the one way that people talk about it all the time is like, there's demand. people buy it, use it either in industrial use cases or use it as store of value and hold it in bolts, et cetera, et cetera, right? It's used in circuit boards, right, because it's good conductivity, it's not corrosive, it's malleable. It's like the perfect type of atomic substance, right, like structure for a lot of these things. And then that's the commodity based, like valuation framework, right? There's just, there's nothing that gives you any claims to any kind of discounted cash flow,

and then it's just used in different places. And a lot of it is basically used in store value for gold, for example, right? And then there's other things. You can actually measure it, even though it's really hard to actually go through the entire world, right? And then like deterministically compute how much are people buying for circuit boards, how much is like TSM buying into code. It's like silicon, right, and things like that. But you could deterministically, it's not some voodoo magic thing of like, you know, one thing that I really disagree with is like this is not some kind of, if you talk about commodity premiums, right, like commodity flows, it's not just a way to obscure stuff and get rid of like DCF or something like that, right?

It's difficult, but it's a deterministic fundamentals-based view of how to value an asset. Because some assets like gold, like silver, like oil, right? Like it's used in places it's stored in barrels, et cetera, containers. You can actually reproduce, and so thus you could falsify it. like gold shouldn't be trading at like $7,000 if this is the supply should be trading at $3,000, because this is the actual supply. These are all of the buy orders and sell orders in the entire world, even though that's a very hard thing to do. It's a deterministic algorithm, right? So that brings me back kind of to the ETH asset, right? And again, I've been in crypto,

especially Ethereum for a really, really long time. And I was trying to think about, you know, what actually, in my opinion went wrong with ETH the asset. And like, the first thing that I always get back to is I always separate ether technology with ethi asset. And this is actually really, really important because you actually had a really good episode last week with Dan Krat, Onscar, Mike, and you guys, right? And it was funny because at the very beginning, I think it was Anscar or something, he was like, oh, well, on this episode, we're not going to talk about the price. Right. Let's let's talk about that. And so the first thing, I was like, well, you guys are mainly here because of the,

the awkward price right now talking on the podcast, but I did appreciate that they fully separated the technology from the price and the asset, right? And so I think the first thing I want to say is the exact inverse of him is, I'm not here to talk about the technology, I'm here to talk about the asset. And those are actually more different than people think. It's interesting because the Ethereum Foundation, the researchers, they're brilliant. And actually, I think I would say this from the very beginning, 2014 to currently in 2025, they're probably the smartest people in the space in terms of what Vitalik has created,

how he's created the technology, what ethos Ethereum has actually created in the ability of people to do in the world, decentralized, trustless computation that actually allows people to do things on chain without needing any kind of middlement for a lot of all these things, right? D5, FRAX, which is what inspired us to build

the original decentralized stable coin now more with like higher order institutions and all these things, right? The issue is that's great. Like I think, in my opinion, I think Ethereum is going to continue to be the flag bearer of that like technology and it's going to continue to make the world a better place

that does not mean the Ethereum price is going to go up. Like those two things are not connected, not necessarily connected, in some way they can be connected if it's done right, right? But they are not in some sense necessarily connected. And I think this is the, big, big disconnect that people don't, which is where downstream all of the fighting comes from, oh, are the L2's parasitic, oh, or all these things, and should we be charging more,

tariff the L2's tax, the this, and that, and whatever. It's because the technology is amazing, and then I stand by that, and it always has been, and I cannot be more bullish the technology and the Ethips. I've always identified and will continue to identify with the Ethereum Infinite Garden, which originally was the world computer for everyone that knows the original Vitalik videos before and after the ether sale, right? And then this thing is the best culture and the best technology. Doesn't mean eth will capture the actual value, if there even is any value there to capture,

right? And so my main thesis is that there's a few things that I think went wrong with the theorem. And before we get deeply into it, one last thing I want to say for people listening to this is this is not about marketing. Anytime I talk about this, some people are like, oh, so you just want Ethereum, the asset to be marketed differently. No, no, no. This is actually more fundamental because this is a socially constructed definition of the asset that causally changes what it actually is. For example, like, if you actually get everyone in the entire planet to believe that, like, you, David, are the king of France, right? That's not good marketing. You literally become the

King of France, right? Let's say it's like 300, 400 years ago, right? This is not good marketing. If everyone in the world believes you get to live in the palace of like Versailles, right? You get to control the entire state. You get to do X, Y, and Z causally, right? If you actually get people to socially, socially believe that you're the King of France or more relevantly the president of the United States, right? There was a lot of disagreement about who was the president of the United States four years ago, like very, very relatable, right? That's not good marketing. That is not good marketing, right? Like to be able to convince people you are the president of the United States requires a whole host of coordination, a whole host of social

definitions, whole host of actual people socially agreeing on a specific thing. There's no physical thing to point out. There's no president of the United States sign or something like that where you write your name on, right? But it's not marketing. It's definitely not marketing. And this is one of the main things that I'm really like passionate about to get out here because it's not a bunch of people writing blogs, right? And like everyone just giving their own opinion, right? One of the first things, everyone always says, like, well, you says, whatever you want it to be, whatever you want it to be. It's very, very schizophrenic. It's really crazy, right? You can't, you're not the president of the United States if you want to be, right? You just can't have a bunch of people like shouting and

screaming. It doesn't make it suck, right? It's only a socially constructed emergent property if a bunch of people agree in an exact same structure. And, you know, and, you know, and, you're And then it's binary, right? It's a little bit difficult to measure exactly when it's binary. But before we discuss everything, right, I just want to make sure that this is like on the record in terms of my belief is I'm not advocating to market Ethereum differently. I'm advocating to understand the ETH asset differently as like a universal group of pro-Eth Ethereum bulls like Ethereum, like Ethereum. And actually to do that first, you have to like separate Ethereum, the technology, the blockchain, the roadmap, the amazing culture with ETH the asset. So that's kind of my premise in this like background of why I started writing all of these

threads and everything. Instead of, you know, most of my work is like on Frax, FraxUSD, building out this entire full stack of money and everything that we're working on. So yeah. Okay, so like just to really make sure I understand your point, we're not trying to like market what Ether is. We are trying to generate like internal Ethereum community consensus about how we understand Ether the asset internally because then maybe the next step is, is like, okay, once we come to consensus internally, we can have better marketing. But I think what you're alluding to is, like, first we need to kind of figure out internally what the nature of ether is as it relates to a theory and the technology.

Is that what you're saying? That's exactly what I'm saying. It's really well said. And I hope that's clear because very few people, I think. That's why I started actually writing about it because I have a bunch of stuff to do about stable coins and fracts and all this stuff. But I'm like, I don't know whether either I am being dumb and like no one's saying it like this, or someone needs to say it so that people understand this is not just bickering over

or how do we brand this stuff? Or like, how do we market it? If we do it correctly, it will fundamentally change the value of this digital asset. Everything here is digital, right? Like, you can't eat Ethereum, right? You can't build, like, shelter with it. It's just zeros and ones, right? Like this entire thing is socially constructed, just like how the president of the United States,

the role, the title, the power that comes with, socially constructed, the king of France, the role, the power, everything, socially constructed. There's no fundamental, it's not like energy, it's not like oil, that you can burn it, you know, do warmth and, like, build stuff with it. It's entirely socially constructed. First, the way that you said it perfectly. And then second, after it's socially constructed, how do you want to market this thing? Oh, this thing is like, this thing is a president of the United States should to use it or whatever, right? Like, this thing is this type of asset, that type of thing, right? Right. Okay. So with that framework in mind, tell us the story of the

collapse of ETHBTC down from the highs of 0.0.08 in December of 2021 to where it is now at 0.0.0.0. 1-8. So, like, ETH versus Bitcoin has lost 80% of its value. How do you explain that story? Why did that happen? And how does that fit inside of your framework of understanding? Yeah. So the main thing, and the most important thing, in my opinion, is to try to, like, actually look historically, because Ethereum has been out since 20, 2015, right? And, like, it transitioned to proof of stake, I believe, sometime in 2022. September 2020. Yes. So you can obviously see roughly where these things changed, if you overlay the price, that doesn't mean correlation is causation, right? But the main important thing from a fundamentals perspective, I'm not a trader,

I don't ever trade stuff, I hold it for the very long term, is to actually learn, like, what happened around these times, right, and not like look at charts or anything like that. But the main thing that I've noticed is like the transition to proof of state plus EIP 1559 fundamentally changed ETH, the actual asset, not the technology. I love the technology, and actually I had very pro-proof of stake on the technology layer, but it changed ETH the asset to discounted cash flow P&E asset, where the thing that is the most predominant definition of the asset is this discussion about the cash flows that come with it with EIP-1559, instead of actually talking about it like a commodity that's actually a good store of value. The issue is,

You can imagine, like, if you have a DCF asset, discounted cash flow, price to earnings asset, which are traditionally equities and stuff, necessarily, that's sort of pre-necessitates mutually exclusively that that asset has some properties that are made for optimizing DCF and not optimizing for it to be a commodity, such as frequent changes in the supply of the asset that makes it hard to reason about, everything that actually optimizes for increasing the DCF, the discounted cash flow, right? Like, there's certain properties that aren't good for a DCF, like fixed immutable, like, you know, you can't ever do anything to optimize the standard cash flow. There's certain things that are really good for a commodity, and those things are

obvious in the differences between like BTC and ETHI assets. Now, what I actually think is there's not that many fundamental, as many as people think. What I actually think is we messed up on the social definition. Instead of talking about this properly, like, this is about, you know, who's the president of the United States instead of a marketing issue, right? Like, I think that people didn't realize until there was, there was like something actually wrong, right? And so, the main thing, I think, is that EIP-1559 really just changed the entire definition of ETH the asset. And the other things that everyone coming up with, like, a really interesting, you know, this ultrasound money. and then actually I read Ryan's new post that came out this morning, which I think is actually

fantastic. It gets tons of things correctly. I think it's actually one of the best recent thesis of ETHI asset and everything that I've read. And then the ethereal guys, you know, Vevic, Grant, Danny, Zach, they're doing God's work. I mean, they're doing the Talas work, right? The holy work for ETH asset. I think they're very, very good. The issue is, like I said, if you have a bunch of people saying like, this guy is the president of the union says, this guy is the president, it doesn't necessarily work, right? It's almost like a Boolean thing, right? Like, it's like all or nothing. Like if you have a bunch of people here saying, oh, Ethereum is this super duper hard thingy magic asset, like, you know, use it. It's better than Bitcoin as store of value. People over here are

like, well, Ethereum discounted cash flow is going down. So this is super bare. Stop like even doing it. Bloomberg, ETF issuers. They write reports. They all see. ETH as a discounted cash flow asset, right? And so it's like, it doesn't matter what we're saying online, right? Everyone's like analyzing the price to earnings of this asset. We would recommend you buy the BTC ETF, right? This does not comport well with what everyone wants to happen to ETH, which is a unified, it could be multiple things, by the way, just to be very clear, it could be multiple things, but unless it's done properly by all participants in the world, literally all kinds of stakeholders from ETF issues to developers to, and I don't know exactly, right? These are

social things. I don't know exactly where that Boolean switches, right? But the difference is you either get Ethereum is nothing other than people screaming, like a bunch of definitions, or it's a lot of things that's properly constructed, right? If everyone's shouting, oh, it's ultrasound money, or it's this, or that, or whatever. Ethereum is nothing. It's just chaos, right? Ethereum, the asset, is nothing. It's just a bunch of people screaming different names of U.S. presidents. This person is the U.S. person, that person. But if it's done properly in a properly structured coordinated manner, it actually does make a difference. And the last thing I'll say is like, I'm not actually against EIP-1559, like the algorithm. It might sound that way. People might assume that,

oh, he's bringing up discounted cash flow. He's saying this was like a mistake. I'm actually a big fan of proof of stake and EIP-1559, I want people to understand what we've done wrong where I think the Ethereum community is as someone that's been involved since 2014. I think we've done wrong. EIP-1559, it just splits fees, right? Like, it's just an algorithm.

Again, this stuff is all social, right? It's for people that, I'm sure everyone are listening to this probably knows, right? It splits fees that users pay to either some gets burned or some goes to validators, right? And then I love it. It's clever.

It's really smart. and obviously the amount that gets burned can't be decided by central parties, right? EIP-159 is the algorithm, and depending on how much the blocks are full, like the previous blocks, some more gets burned or less get sent to the validators or more gets sent to the validators and less gets burned. That's just an algorithm. There's nothing actually about that happening that means Ethereum, the asset, needs to be thought of universally as an equity-like investment in block space. In fact, the most important point is like I was like talking to Haseba about,

this the other day. And he actually said it in a way that he recommended, I communicated. And I think he's right, which is, if you actually think of EIP 1559 as this like discounted cash flow, let's say like you said, like, hey, it's here, right? It exists, right? Like, how do we go about it now? Right? I actually was like, imagine if, imagine thought experiment or like Bitcoin, BTC people actually integrated EIP-1559, or probably BIP-159 in Bitcoin, right? And into the Bitcoin protocol, right? Like the actual block theme model in BTC, you wouldn't, I don't think, right, this, we could go through this thought experiment.

It doesn't change the supply of the 21 million, like the overall supply, right? Like, you know, the actual circulating kind of changes a little bit, right? But you would not actually see a fundamental difference in how people in the Bitcoin community talk about the BTC asset, at least I contend you wouldn't, right? If you actually add it, EIP-159 to BTC, right? And like, anytime someone paid like a BTC transaction, depending on how many blocks prior, whether it's really full or really empty, a little bit of it gets burned or a little more gets burned, and then the rest goes to the proof of work minors, right? You can imagine this scenario. I don't see why they want to do it. In fact, one thing, the side thing is that doing something

like that could actually help the BTC security budget because it smoothens out the value of Bitcoin as like a flows thing rather than literally half and half and half and half from the proof of work happenings. But anyway, that's a separate thing. Think of this thought experiment. If that happened, would you actually think like Michael Saylor or everyone or the BTC ETF issuers, right? They would just stop talking about the real social definition of what BTC is and be like, hey guys, let's all just model this fee burn. Let's all just talk predominantly about this fee burn. and like let's everyone coordinate around defining this asset now as how much is going to get burned over time. And let's just stop talking about whether this is a national, like, store of value for

like central banks, for companies, for people, right, like looking to preserve their wealth in a totally immutable, decentralized way with zero other trust assumptions, right? Stable coins have trust assumptions, the unit they're pegged to have trust assumptions, every other governance token that actually has some kind of actual expectation. on discounted cash flow has extra trust assumptions, right? And that's good because they can optimize for DCF, right? BTC, no trust assumptions. It's totally decentralized. Ethereum, no trust assumptions, totally decentralized, right? And if you could imagine a world in which the BTC people implemented like EIP 1559, and you didn't think that they would totally change the topic to discounted cash flows

and rewrite, not marketing, literally redefine the asset. It's more than marketing. Like you, understood really well, then why did we do it? Like, why did Ethereum people do it? And what, I mean, I think we made a mistake. This is the core point. And what Haseeb was saying when I was talking to him the other day was that if you actually go and do this, right, like if you actually have, which we did, unfortunately, where everyone started to coordinate around, hey guys, let's just keep talking nonstop about the discounted cash flow of this like burn fee mechanism thing. What you're actually doing is you're just talking about the minimum amount of value that ETH the asset can be worth, the floor. That is always the floor,

right? The burn, the discounted cash flow, it can't possibly be worth ETH the asset any less than the expected discounted cash flow of burns from the block space demand, right? And when we entirely focus on that, what we're basically saying is, hey, guys, ETH could be worth many, many, many, many times more if we concentrate it on different social definition. But let's all sit down and nonstop talk about the floor, right? Like the actual floor of Ethereum. Target the minimum valuation. Exactly. Target the floor valuation and just keep talking about it nonstop until it finally trades at the floor. In fact, that's what I say is like if this keeps happening, it should fundamentally probably trade it like $500, $600, right? If you're just like looking at the expected current

discount of cash flow and then extrapolate, oh, you know, amazing. Burns will happen because there will be tens and tens and hundreds and hundreds of roll-ups, which I'm pro-L-2 roadmap. Again, I don't talk about the technology because I have no problem with the technology, right? Like all of this stuff is downstream of this fundamental deciding who the president of the United States is not marketing. It's really not marketing because once you actually can decide this, everything else falls into place better. When you don't have this decided, everything else downstream about the technology is you will never solve it because no one actually has a proper referent of like what the actual asset is,

right? In order to have L2s, they need to pay ether gas, right? And like some of it gets burned. So it's in every single crevice of like the ETH roadmap, right? Without actually first deciding what that thing is, right? You can't actually coherently come to an agreement. And so that's why when I separate the ETH asset, I actually really, really love the technology. I have no issue with the technology. Fract still is currently in L2, right? And so, and so, and so. And so, It's optimized for certain things. I would love to actually literally like have Ethereum the asset as its store of value. But if no one else properly thinks of ETH as the store of value, it's going to be Bitcoin, right?

And so that's kind of my overall thesis. And that's how I'm trying to get people to start actually talking about it. Less about marketing, less about trading, more about fundamentals. When Ethereum shifted to proof of stake, there's been a bunch of Bitcoin or tweets that have cropped up in my feed, jeering at the ETH-BTC decline since Ethereum moved to proof of stake. And they're using this moment in time of Ethereum shift from proof of work, abandoning proof of work, going to proof of stake. And then ETHBTC has been down 80% ever since Ethereum abandoned proof of work. And so they're kind of beating their chess as a way to, like, validate the legitimacy of

proof of work, which I decline that reality. Like, ETHBTC is not down 80% because proof of work is inherently valuable. But they're just pattern matching to kind of like validate their understanding the proof of work is like the core thing that makes Bitcoin run in addition to the 21 million hard cap. What you're saying is that when Ethereum did go from proof of work to proof of stake, we moved the attentional focus point away from a commodity store of value asset towards a DCF model. And so maybe it actually was the transition, according to like what you're believing. It was the transition probe from proof of work to proof of stake has nothing to do with proof of work. There's no reason why proof of work is like bullish. And of course, I think if you believe in

proof of sake, you actually understand that proof of work is actually bearish because it's constant selling pressure. But the bearish side of proof of sake, according to what you're saying, is that it's moving towards social consensus focus point on revenues as the thing to like beat our chest about. And then of course, when revenues dropped to zero, that anchor just got lower and lower and lower and anchor point got lower and lower lower, lower to the point where you're saying, well, if we continue to value ether the asset as a DCF model, we come out to like a $500 ETH valuation. And this is where people in the Ethereum community are talking about like, oh, well, Ethereum, the technology can work at a $500 ETH. Like, everything is going to keep on working just fine because the community

consensus has pointed around a DCF model as the way to value ETH. So that's like the synthesis of like my understanding of your conversation and I understand that perspective. I don't think there's anything that I disagree with. But here is what I want you to address next. Ethereum will always have revenue. Like we like EIP-1559. There is revenue at the layer one. I hope actually that we actually increase revenue. I want the Ethereum Foundation and the Ethereum product mindset to instill, you know, starting now and over the next years and really think about the layer one as a product. And a measure of success of the Ethereum products is our revenues go up. And so as a construct, as a technology, Ethereum will have revenues.

And so I don't think it's possible to just ignore the existence of Ethereum revenues. The DCF model or the fact that Ethereum has revenue in the first place will always exist. There will always be something to focus on. Now, I think we can talk about how maybe we should emphasize the commodity-esque side of ETH, but nonetheless, we are not getting rid of revenues. No one is suggesting that. You are not suggesting that. And so we will always have to contend nonetheless with the existence.

of revenues. We can't really like sweep it under the rug. So how do you balance this idea of we want ether to be a commodity like asset with a commodity like valuations, but on the other side of the spectrum, it is also a revenue-bearing technology platform. It is a revenue like tech stock. It is a valid perspective, whether it's the right perspective or the wrong perspective, I think is social consensus. But it is a valid perspective. So how do you contend with this? Yeah, that's a really good point. And to actually directly agree with you, I do not think proof of stake was a mistake. I do not think EIP 1559 was a mistake. In fact, that's why I kind of constructed this thought experiment of imagine if BTC like integrated EIP1, it's just a fee algorithm, right? Like it's literally

better technology. Yeah. But in fact, a lot of people bring up the security budget, and I know this isn't to talk about the Bitcoin security budget and stuff. But I actually think implementing EIP1 559 in Bitcoin actually is one possible solution. There has to be a lot of research done to fixing the BTC security budget because it smoothens out the actual demand for BTC, the floor demand. And so it's not just halvings, right? Like, you can actually bring value back to the BTC asset as a function of discounted cash flows from demand from block space. Anyway, so I think that the main issue is those things aren't the problem. And I've actually said, like, the superpower with proof of work is not that it's more decentralized. I don't believe that or whatever, but the superpower is you can't

coherently talk about discounted cash flows in proof of work. This pitfall doesn't exist, which is why the BTC people have beautifully navigated it, whether it's by accident or not. There was no like landmine to step on, right? The BTC token holders do not actually have any claims on any DC have any burns, right? And like, this is why I was saying in a thought experiment, if you imagine they do, they could make a mistake like the Ethereum, but they probably won't because they're so well trained on not actually bringing up DCF. Even though functionally, even though functionally, you can imagine a world where BTC has BIP-1559, right? And so my answer to you is like, let's look at gold, right? Imagine a world where like there was an industrial use case of gold that like somehow turned it into lead. It took it out of supply permit, changes molecular makeup, or even better, there's oil, right? When you use it, it literally changes its molecular makeup, right? You would not say the gold asset has discounted cash flows. Like, taking the gold out of circulation does not mean, like, atomically, like out of this universe, right? Like reverse alchemy. Doesn't mean the gold asset has fundamentally changed its definition. Not marketing. Remember,

it's more fundamental than marketing, right? You would not say the gold asset is now a discounted cash flow price to earnings asset, right? That would be. wouldn't make sense. You say there's this new industrial use case of gold, which is really interesting, right, where if you code it on the special circuit board or something, it somehow turns it into let. They're like, you can never change it back to gold unless, you know, we discover real alchemy, right? And that is, I think, the right way to think about it because I'm not saying roll back yet at you 1,559. I'm not saying to go back to it. And I'm not saying it's permanently a big mistake because if Ethereum actually accidentally went this way, you can think it could on purpose go the other than. So I'm not saying,

I'm not saying this is like, oh, it's over. It's like, you know, all this stuff, which is why I've actually, like, tried to bring this conversation into this course, because if you can accidentally... It's the point of this episode as well. Yeah, and so it's like, if you could go this way and, like, Ethereum started literally proof of work.

So, like, Ethereum is actually one of the most interesting and consequential digital assets, and in my opinion, assets to ever exist, because it started as a proof of work asset, right? You could not coherently talk about discounted cash flows, right? And it upgraded to the best. technology stack of proof of stake EIP-1559, and then it fundamentally slowly, it's not like a switch, but it fundamentally slowly in some point changed its predominant definition. And here we are,

in my opinion, right? And so if you could do that, if Ethereum, the entire social coordination layer can do that by accident, I would assume, I don't think people want it all-time low against BTC, right? You can, on purpose, go the other direction, too, if you understand the issue. And so, So the point is, like you said, EIP-1559 will be there. And like whatever we think about it, it'll still actually exist. And I love it. And I think it should hopefully continue to burn more and more ETH, but as an industrial use case of ETH,

not as a revenue modeling thing. And the other thing I will say is like people usually bring up, oh, well, ETH is done worse against solely asset and other things too. So like this doesn't explain the whole thing. I actually don't think that has anything to do with this problem. I think ETH and BTC are like the only two like special kind of assets. And this is partly why I'm like in a big Ethereum person as well as a big BTC person. I think that there's no third best.

Like from the sailor, I think there's no second best. I actually think there's no third best. And every other asset will. There's no third commodity money in crypto. I think that's probably right. I think we'll see. We don't know. But I think right now that that's the two thing.

And the important thing is I think every single asset. that gets big enough, will probably have this social civil war. And like, whether, what is this asset? Is it a DCF asset or is it a store of value? And I actually think ETH is obviously the store value asset. And so I don't think the sole asset, for example, the gains has anything to do with this mistake. I think this is only between ETH and BTC. Sol was just super hot and there's nothing more to it. And they might keep growing. Great. I love the Solana guys. with fracks issues, it's stuff there. I love Anatoly. They're all amazing. But this has anything to do with like other L1 assets. They're going to come to the same like fork in the road. Like if Seoul

gets like 5x from here and gets like close to hundreds of billions of market cap, right? Enough people when it has like ETF issuers like it will this year where they like Wall Street types, right, that are like what is the actual fundamental asset? Like who is the president of the United States, right? Let's actually write this clearly and like agree on it. That if the sole asset gets stamped as like a DCF, you know, price their earnings asset, I don't think it's ever cashing up to Bitcoin. And maybe they're not trying to, right? Maybe they're just like, oh, we were just trying to flip Eith or whatever. That's great if that's what they want and they just want to be a DCF asset. But this is nothing to do with other L1s because they're not immune to this. So this is not like

an ETH problem. And like it's because ETH is the only other thing. thing that is actually legitimate enough after BTC that this is a discussion between all the East community. The East community people are very mature in that they've traversed this gauntlet much more than any other of these assets, right? Imagine verifying yourself without handing over personal data. No hacked databases, no unnecessary personal exposure for air drops, and no AI bots ruining community governance.

Meet Self, the on-chain identity verification protocol built for privacy and control. Self-Proticle uses zero knowledge proofs to control. your identity safely. Users prove key details like age or citizenship without revealing sensitive personal information. Self never stores your data. It only generates cryptographic proofs. Here's how it works in three steps. First, register and verify. Use the self-app app to scan your biometric passports RFID chip. Self-verifies authenticity with zero knowledge proofs. Each passport creates one unique identity. Second, you can share proofs privately. Third-party apps request identity proofs like

confirming your over 18. You can also link proofs securely to public wallets for airdrops or governance participation. And then last, secure verification. Apps validate your proofs instantly on chain, like on cello or off chain. Audited by ZK security, the self app is live on iOS and Play Store. Visit self.x.com. and follow self protocol on X. Uniswap is your gateway to a more efficient defy experience.

With uniswap swapping and bridging across 13 chains, is simple, fast, fast, and cost-effective, helping you move value wherever, whenever, whenever. Thanks to deep liquidity on the uniswap protocol, you'll, enjoy minimal price impact on every trade, and now Uniswap V4 takes it even further. Swappers benefit from gas savings on multi-hop swaps and each trading pairs, while liquidity providers can create new pools at 99% lower costs. The best part, you don't have to do anything extra. Each trade is automatically routed through Uniswap X, V2, V3, and V4, so you give the most efficient swap without even thinking about it. Whether you're swapping, sending, on-ramping, off-ramping, or bridging

Uniswop's web app and wallet gives you the tools to unlock DeFi's full potential on Ethereum, base arbitralum unichane and more use uniswops web app and wallet for a more efficient way to use defy i want to bring up ryan's post that he put out on friday for anyone who is listening to this podcast that didn't read that post it's pretty short he titled it the blue money religion the blue money gospel and there's uh i think seven points in here and they're all kind of pointing to ether as this is something that ryan has been beating and stress about since like 2019 like ether the religion like what does eth need it needs to be like a religion because the money is similar. And he talks about all the things that Bitcoin got right. What Ethereum forgot and basically the theorem forgot the narrative around Eith, how there needs

to be like cult like behavior around ETH or the asset. Hold ETH. Tell everyone to hold ETH. Shame layer two treasuries, whales and Dows that do not hold ETH. Celebrate when people buy Eith. Stake, restake, auto steak. And then, you know, myth busting, call to faith, all these kind of things that again, Ryan's been beating his trust about the need for this for forever. about like, you know, shifting the Overton window around ether the asset towards something that has, like, a pretty fervorous, zealot-like community around ether of the asset. I want to get your take on that, like, part of this story. What do you think about the call to arms that Ryan has put out there? So I actually read it and right, right before. I love it. I think it's actually

one of the best recent things. And, you know, I love to discuss it. The thing, again, that I would say in terms of the results-oriented approach and fundamental, like, understanding approach that I try to take about this is like that's a big post of saying, I think this guy is the president of the United States. Unless you get a bunch of people to actually agree, it's totally useless. And I like his where he's pointing, because it is my point, right? But again, once you stop thinking about it, like this is marketing and branding speak, and you just throw that concept out. And you think of it as these are socially constructed fundamental definitions. And then everything downstream refers to it, the way that we agree about titles of like head of state or like what something actually is used for socially,

right? I like his definition. I like the, you know, the person he's pointing saying, this is the president of the United States. So Ryan is pointing towards a particular outcome saying, hey, this is the way that it should be with. And you are also pointing there. You are also, like, raising your hand and pointing in the same direction that Ryan is. Is that right? Yes. In fact, so actually, I said a lot of things similar where I was like, Ethereum people have been historically too nice, which is awesome. I love being nice about everything except certain red lines of things where, for example, the BTC people have gotten very right so that they don't get confused about BTC, the asset being socially, fundamentally defined as a store of value. Things like

shaming people doing too many tokens or any token, some of it and stuff, calling them shit coins, right? That actually is good for BTC, the asset, because it's a coordination mechanism to be like, don't you dare point at anything else as the president of the United States, right, to keep the example going. The issue is, I've brought this up, and Ryan said it really well, is, A, we have to define what certain things that we are going to be, you know, dig some out or like a red line about. And then two, we have to agree on what those things are, because if a bunch of people are doing it, they're just asses, right? If a bunch of people are, there's only a few of them. And then, you know, there's just, like, randomly these people and then everyone else is nice and Vitalik is super

nice and then the Ethereum Foundation, this like priest took class as Amin Soleimani likes to say, right, are like super duper nice. It doesn't match at all. It just looks like there's like a bunch of schizo people here and then like the world is going on without them, right? And again, it just seems like everyone's pointing to like a different who's the president of the United States, right? And so the two things that I really liked about the two best things I like, almost everything was really great in the post is that if we don't make sure that Ethereum is using store value And two, if we don't make sure that Ethereum, the technology, right, the settlement layer, is not this fundamental ledger we've lost. So I've actually, because FRAX issues the FRAXUSD stable coin, we're deep in talking to institutions and about RWA issuance and all this stuff.

One of the other, the things I've thought of that's like a concern is like, imagine if like everyone's saying there's RWAs that are, you know, being issued on all these chains. but then everyone's like, oh, Ethereum has the most. Ethereum is the safest place and all this stuff. It's actually not good for Ethereum to combine being super nice about their TVL and saying, oh, it's great. You're issuing stuff on Solana and all these other places too. But look at how big the Ethereum RWA issuance is. That doesn't work because if you issue, let's say, for example, you're like Tether,

tokenized dollars are just RWA's, right? or let's say like someone has a RW, like BlackRock Biddle, right? It's issued on Solana, a bunch of other chains and Ethereum, and it's the biggest on Ethereum. If you issue on Solana, and then there's like, you know, the Solana blockchain goes down for by 24 hours, which it has before, right, and things like that. And there's like some issue where someone's redeemed, right? And then like they get the token again, if their network reboots, right, et cetera, and all this stuff, right?

Like the exact thing that people are saying Ethereum is good at because it'll never go down. It's the most decentralized. if you have RWA's on Ethereum from the same issuer, and then you have native RWA's on Solana or like Tron, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and one of these things goes down, you're still exposed to the losses of the actual assets on these other chains because Ethereum is not the fundamental ledger source of truth. It's one of the fundamental.

And so this is the issue is like, we have to be, for example, a bit of, you know, Dix and there was like a coin telegraph article where I actually talked. talked about this, and then I didn't know the headline was going to be Ethereum community has to be more assholes about certain things, but it's kind of true. Like, we have to have certain social red lines so people know that you have to actually use Ethereum as the source of truth, and then everything else is like a wrapped version of it using some kind of, you know, internal message passing system that like an RWA series L0, wormhole, etc., etc. Otherwise, we're doing this thing again where everyone says something nice and you, oh, Ethereum is this, and it's this, and it's

that, and it's this. And at the end of the day, if it's everything, it's nothing because it's not properly defined. You want everyone to agree on a unified vision, which could include multiple things, right? Like, Ethereum could be a unified definition of it, could be a triple point asset or something, right? And that by definition means it's three things. But if some people are like, it's this, it's that, this person's the president of the United States, it's that person's the president And this, and this, it's literally nothing. It's just a bunch of chaos. That's the most bearish of all. And that's the problem. And like, for example, the proof of work stuff that we were just talking about, the superpower is everyone's forced to talk about the asset in one particular way. That's a superpower. Not that it's like decentralized thing or whatever. It's not the work part that's powerful. It's that part. Exactly. Exactly. It's the structural thing. And to be honest, that could be worth the extra cost.

because that's such a good costly, costly social coordination problem, that like, it may be it's worth like 10% emission or 5% emission instead of like, you know, 1% of, you know, minimum viable issuance because it's so costly to think about all this stuff. But think that all of the time that we're talking about this, you and me and every other ETH podcast and every other thing and every other developer and everyone arguing and multiply those man hours by the entire Ethereum global community, how much productivity is lost there versus like a couple million more Ethereum tokens minted to the consensus mechanism, you know, over time, right, versus all of those millions of man hours, like, you know, being able to use Ethereum in, like,

countries and all this stuff. So that's the most important thing. And I think that, you know, Ryan has a really good proposal. He has a really good reference to where the president of the United States, again, like should be. I wonder if more people, will point there or if it's just, you know, like random pointing matches as usual the past, you know, three years since EIP-1-55-9. Yeah. Bitcoin has done this very unique thing where it has stripped away everything in the blockchain that could, you know, move attention away from the 21 million hard cap.

Like it has structurally, systematically removed utility from Bitcoin. Bitcoin's intent has to always become totally worthless as a blockchain other than the 21 million hard cap. And to your point, I think this has made it easier to generate a shelling point, a focal point for the community attention to focus on the 21 million hard cap. Ethereum's strategy has been always, of course, completely different. In pursuit of being money, Ethereum, the ecosystem has always taken the hardest possible path to get ether the asset to become money. Because Bitcoin has already optimized for whatever its strategy is, like remove all utility, only focus on the 21 million hard cap. but Ethereum has always had different aspirations. Utility, growth, innovation, updates, scale, all of these things that Ethereum has aspired

towards. And it has, you know, confounded, you know, muddied up the waters when talking about ether the asset. But in order to get Ether into becoming a money, it has to walk this more narrow, dangerous path, in my opinion, where we have this Ethereum product out there, this technology that needs to be the best possible technology. In addition to that, we also have ether, the asset, which has its life of its own. And I think one of the big reasons in 2021 why the ETHBTC ratio started to like turn over was that the Ethereum product started to be misaligned with the needs of the time.

The Ethereum products started to break down. And so the product that we had to sell to the world started to become an inferior product versus other competitors that are also in the market. So people are going into the supermarket of blockchings. They are seeing Ethereum. They are seeing Solana. They are seeing Avalanche. They are seeing base. They are seeing World Chain. Even Ethereum Layer 2 is they're like, all right, what products do I want to buy right now? And, you know, the Ethereum Layer 1 was not frequently chosen as a product to buy because we were building towards a direction that really didn't emphasize the Layer 1 as a product. And And so right now I'm seeing a pivot, a shift in emphasis in the Ethereum core devs in the Ethereum ecosystem to like really prioritize the Ethereum layer one as a product.

And that is not just for like layer one users, but also layer two's. Like we have now a head of, that's not his official title, but like a pseudo head of product for layer two's. And they are just working for interops. And then there's also a reemphasis on scaling the layer one, not just to meet the needs of potential, you know, future layer twos. but really for as maximum as possible. So I am seeing a shift in focus point of the Ethereum tech stack to become a very strong product. Now, I think that does have a positive feedback signal back to Ether, the asset.

Ether the asset, in pursuit of everything that you want it to be, a commodity asset with commodity-like shelling point and a commodity-like focus and a store value focused by the community, that is actually bolstered by the fact that Ethereum has a very strong product. think Ethereum with higher fees and higher burn can boost the strength of ether the asset, the commodity money. It's just really dependent on the very precise, narrow band of possible talking points by the Ethereum community. How do we balance these things? How do we have a very strong Ethereum product, but not focus on the DCF model for ether, the asset, and have that

strong product, which, again, illustrates the idea of why this is a hard walk-to-walk to walk, we need to be as product builders, very pragmatic and realistic about the Ethereum product that we have. On the Ethereum technology side, we need a culture of pragmatism and product-mindedness that I think is growing at the Ethereum Foundation. And that, to me, is Ethereum being nice, pluralistic, open, you know, big tent mentality. And in the technology side of Ethereum, we need to have convexity, Vitalik, Buteran style convexity. And then when we talk about ether the asset, it has to shift. It has to be concavity. It has to be extreme. It has to be maximalist. And so it's this weird tension where we need as a community to be flexible in who we are and what we are in our conversation. When we are discussing Ethereum the product, we need to be

adaptable. We need to be flexible. We need to be nice. We need to be open. When we talk about ether the asset, we need to look to Ryan's post and we need to be maximalist and we need to be strong and we need to be unforgiving and we need to be assholes. And doing both is hard. And that is the challenge that I think is set up before us as an ecosystem where we have to figure out. It's not about what lane we want to be. And we have to be in both lanes and pick a lane in the context of the moment in question. Are we talking about ether, the asset to Wall Street?

Yachti maximalist. Are we talking about application builders who are choosing a home to build? Well, we need to be pragmatic in that case. And so we have to do both. And that's a little scary to me. That's a little daunting. What do you think about this? Yeah. So I think almost everything you said I agree with, there's a few things I wanted to push back on. Sure. Because you said a lot of really interesting stuff. One is, yes, we have to just do a better job of like separating ETH the technology and ETH the asset because ETH technology is so good and awesome. And when you confuse it with ETH the asset, you get this confusion of like, well, eat the asset hasn't been good recently. So the technology is bad. So the first thing, though, is.

eth the technology, the block space, like demand for the block space, which burns eth in EIP-1559, is the industrial use case of like the ETH asset that sets its floor. Like this is the fundamental view that I have. If, for example, if you take a thought experiment again, imagine tomorrow everyone in the world that is using gold as a store of value, which is at all-time highs, literally, so it's a good time to have this conversation. I imagine if everyone somehow, I don't know how, but like there was just something in everyone's brain, decided that gold was not going to be used as store about. They just sold all the gold in vault,

central banks sold it, everything. They just dumped it on the market and everything like that. It would obviously, like the price would go down like negative 90 something percent. We don't know exactly how much, but it would be insane. Most of gold's market cap and price, clearly, like even the recent all-time high is demand from store of value, case of people needing to store value in times of unknowns and things like that, right? It would not change the demand of gold in industrial use cases by Nvidia, by electronics producers, chip producers, because the atomic, like, structure of gold has not fundamentally changed. Even if everyone socially was like, we will never use this thing as a store of value

again, there's still this bid on the floor of demand because you need it. It's a very specific type of metal in circuit boards that's not corrosive, conduct. It's very, very special, right? There's this base demand that is like a floor price that either goes down or up based on the industrial demand, right? And the EIP-159 algorithm, the burn, is in exactly this floor of, there's this industrial demand of ETH for the ETH technology, which is the blockchain, the network, the block space, the blobs, right? like all of this stuff, you can think of it as a digital industrial use case, right? And the thing that I want to say is that everyone has accidentally since EIP-1559 basically been like, hey, everyone, let's all just talk about this floor price and let's just keep coordinating until ETH trades at this floor price, basically. Right? Like that's basically what the really messed up problem is. It's like this issue is if you could think of gold industrial use case as its floor, if no one ever touches it ever again for jewelry, for store value, for investment for like wrapping in ETFs, right? There's going to be this bit, right?

That's a floor price for it existing, right? As this atomic structure, right? If there's a technology that is programmed in that this asset is the thing you need to use it, the eth blockchain, the blobs, the block space, and there's like a fundamental way that you pay for it, right? It's it's the eth asset. That's the floor price. If you keep talking about that, nonstop, and you're like, guys, let's completely just everyone talking about Wall Street, people write ETF reports about it. I'm going to get all, like, I love the EF guys, like, and everything. They're the smartest tech people. But like, Justin Drake is basically the poster boy of exactly what I'm talking about. He's been on your podcast,

like every time the ROLO podcast, all of these places. And he's like, you can think of ETH as a big business. You can extrapolate the ETH asset discount. cash flows. And you can imagine a world in like five, ten, ten, fifteen years where there's like hundreds of billions of like dividends happening through this burn. And then you can extrapolate Heath having that he's basically saying, let's just trade it at the floor. Let's just everyone coordinate to talk about the floor of ETH, the way that imagine if people only talk about the industrial use case of gold in circuit boards and electronics. And that would suck. Right? Because the thing that is important is, and I want to say so that I'm on the record, I am bullish ETH. I am bullish its price in USD terms, like in the distant future, like going to crazy new like 10K, 20K, 30K, 40K, 50K, 5th, all of this stuff. But the issue is in a world where like ETH is 20K, currently with the structure that the ETH asset like has, in a world where ETH is 20K, Bitcoin is $2 million.

because in that world, a future world in which ETH is 20K based on discounted cash flow floor price necessitates a world where mankind is embraced digital assets by definition, right? And BTC is almost certainly the Supreme Store of Ad. Like in that world, it's $2 million BTC, new, massive all-time low for ETH against BTC, even at 20K. And I think we're headed towards that world, which, sure, I think a bunch of people that hold ETH, me included, right, will be richer than they are today in dollar terms, but we'll still be like, oh, shit, we should have held BTC if this actually goes in that direction. And what I'm trying to prevent is a future world where ETH is 20K and BTC is 2 million. What I'm trying to do is a future world where ETH is like 80K and like BTC is 800K. And in that world, I think that's a new all time high. I just threw these numbers out there, right? But you can imagine that world. And the world doesn't have to go towards a 20K, ETH. And and 2 million Bitcoin, but that's how we've gotten here is like, and all of these very, very smart people in Ethereum Foundation like Justin Drake and them that have brilliant roadmaps, which, again, there's a reason I've been in the Ethereum like community and always followed the technology

and everything that Vitalik publishes. It doesn't mean the either asset will capture any of this value. If all you're doing is talking about how to price it at the floor, how to price it at the minimum viable, discounted cash flow price floor, and everyone is pointing to that social definition and coordinating like the way that everyone coordinates around, that's the president of the United States, and everyone believes that. So then it literally is on marketing, right? It's its social coordination at defining a fundamental thesis like definition. And then everything downstream happens with it. Like this person can launch nuclear weapons. This person can order, it strikes, all of this stuff. Without that definition, none of that works, right? Same thing with Ethereum. Without the

definitely right now it's a DCF thing. And then there's a bunch of people arguing kind of in it, like a schizzo manner about different things that no one else actually believes, right? Because it's a DCF thing. Because the priest took class and the people on Wall Street and important people with capital allocation. The story they tell is this dominant DCF floor price thing. And that's like where we're headed. And I don't think we have to be. And you can even use this issue, right? And then extrapolate why there's so much disagreement downstream. For example, you can imagine a world in which, like, Ethereum is the largest issuer of RWAs, like we were just talking about. Like, everything is fundamentally on Ethereum. And I actually, as soon as I started writing,

I think a lot of people started extrapolating and understanding, like token terminal, like the company that attracts all these DCF of coins. They started posting, like, BlackRock has tons of, like, Biddle tokens on Ethereum by far, but they're not high velocity, right? They're not moving around. In fact, they're securities. So, like, they're only whitelisted things can move them, right? And Ethereum doesn't necessarily get any discounted cash flow at all proportional to these RWAs, right? Like, they only get settlement cash flows from EITU-5-59 when Biddle moves, right? But you can imagine a world where there's like 500 billion Biddle tokens on Ethereum. They move maybe once a week. And so the EI.I.E.I. IP159 mechanism captures like literally nothing, right, of like fees. And Biddle, like BlackRock itself

takes managing fees against the 500 billion. So they're freaking awesome. Like they are a discounted cash flow corporation with actual equity, right? So they're doing their thing right. They're clearly like structured it correctly. And then if the Ethereum people are coordinating in how can we value the eth asset at this floor, you'll have a world in which the Ethereum technology is amazing there's half a trillion dollars of RWA's by BlackRock on it, and the floor has not moved at all. Technically, right, like the floor, if you're trying to value the ECA asset by coordinating around this floor, it doesn't matter if 500 billion Biddle is there. By definition, the floor hasn't moved. So, like, people see that in the industrial use case. Huh, like, everyone's using

the Ethereum technology. Holy shit. Like, everyone would love BlackRock to issue half a trillion dollars of RWA's on their thing, how come the ETH price against Bitcoin just keeps going down and down and down and down and down and down and down because it's valued at the floor. And the floor doesn't necessarily move at all or very, very much if the technology is being used. And so you have a situation where Ethereum, the technology, the culture, the nicest, the rainbows, the unicorns, which I'm a huge fan of, changes the world for the better. And it's amazing. And I'm here for that. And I'm actually very bullish, the Ethereum Tech roadmap. But you have a world where if you keep talking about the floor, the floor barely moves.

And the only upside after these market caps is the not floor. And if you're not talking about that, you'll basically never move very much at all. You'll get to 20K. Bitcoin will be like 5 million. Right. So one of the lines that has been in the Ethereum community is that, you know, Bitcoin going after gold is great. Gold is a great thing to go after. It totally should.

But Ethereum is going after bonds. It's going after the bond market. and the bond market is 100 times larger than the gold tam. Gold tam is like 10 trillion or 20 trillion or something. Like bond market tram, the treasury market tam is like 100 trillion. How do you think about this analysis? Like what comes to mind when you hear this? Like, do you mean eth the asset or eth is trying to tokenize all the bonds?

ETH the asset. No, ether the asset is going after. If Bitcoin's digital gold, ether the asset is like digital treasuries, one, you know, like short-term treasuries plus long-term treasuries combined. What do you think about that? To be completely honest, I think that's a probable mistake. Again, I could be wrong. These are just opinions. But like, for example, like we were saying before, sometimes being a good discounted cash flow equity like asset does not actually mean that you're a good digital commodity, right? Like, for example, this is actually one of the things, right? So if everyone wanted to agree on Ethereum not being valued at this floor thing, there would have to be certain things that aren't big changes. They're not moving. back to proof of work, they're not moving back to a specific thing, but there would have to be certain social commitments in order for everyone to agree to be able to coordinate around this.

For example, Ethereum has a fixed tail emission equation, right, but it doesn't have any fixed total supply. I actually don't think a fixed total supply is needed. I actually, like, let me be on the record of say, I don't think a fixed total supply of 21 million is needed. Again, I think that's by accident that when it's just a fixed number, it becomes easy for really smart people and really like the both sides of that, the curve meme, right? Like to only discuss it as a digital commodity. But for example, Ethereum has to have a social commitment that it will never change the emission algorithm.

The algorithm, which is whatever the tail emission is, can never, ever, ever, ever be changed, ever at just as hard as the 21 million Bitcoin supply. is, and I don't think we're there, right? So, like, I think there's been a lot of research about minimum viable issue, and so we can cut this even further, and that's, like, super bullish. No, that's like basically saying a company has, like, made its costs more economical, therefore you can actually see its P&E thing rise, so, like, the floor value of it slightly raises, and the fact that people even consider that means they could go the other way, too, right? Like, you can increase the missions, which makes it hard for people to actually reason about. Like, on this call right now,

if I told you, hey, David, what is the current yearly annual? Forget the burns. Imagine there's just no burns at all, because those are variable and it's hard to know. What is the tail omission of Ethereum? In this next 12 months, how many ETH tokens are actually coming? I couldn't tell you, but I could easily tell you, like, Bitcoin goes from 12.5, Bitcoin per block a while ago, right? Then it goes like 6.25, after that happening.

And now it's at 3.1, whatever, right? Like, we know exactly yet. Like, I didn't even have to look it up, right? But go ahead. Do you know? Look it out. Do you know how much ETH will be emitted? Do you know?

Well, no, but literally no, because it's dynamic. Yeah. So the equation... It changes. Yeah, yeah. So the equation... Based on network conditions. But the equation is fixed, right?

There's some algebraic way. Like, it's not like Vitalik. Exactly. The equation is fixed. The equation is a dynamic equation that is fixed. Yes. Exactly. It's a dynamic, it's not like,

Vitalik is an API endpoint. It's like, actually I need to change the constants, right? It's fixed, but it's very hard to reason about. Right. Right. And so that is one thing that has to be like the equation will always be fixed. And then instead of talking about DCF, for example, we have to only talk about how to easily, not people who know linear algebra and like taking the differential of like some algebraic equation. We have to actually teach people how to reason about the emission. That's like one thing. The other thing is like if you actually want to not talk about like the floor value, which is the DC. which is what Ethereum is currently talking about, is that you have to actually make it so that other people can coherently talk about these things properly.

And so it requires some kind of commitment of fixed emission algorithm. Like, the easiest thing to fix is it as a constant, which is what BTC. BTC is basically optimized for like the caveman, like, you know, the bell curve to a thing where it's like the guy in the robe and the dumb guy, the IQ thing. It's optimized for this.

And then so the smart people are like, it's great because we're sure that all the non-technical people get it. Ethereum, because the technology is so awesome and amazing, it's optimized for the guy in the robe, right? And like, because it hasn't been properly defined for the guy on the caveman thing, we're all in the middle now, which is like, oh, Ethereum is this Mav, like, this scound and triple point like thing. And, like, everyone looks really dumb because everyone's just like talking in chaos and all this stuff. So the thing that I wanted to say is, like, I'm not against the IP-15-9. I'm not against proof of stake.

I'm not against any of the technological things that Ethereum has done, nor is working on. I'm very pro-L-2 roadmap, to be honest. And I think it actually has nothing to do with the current sentiment of the price, exactly, as you said at the beginning, where people are like, if you could go to 500 bucks and the technology would work fine. Exactly. Eat the technology totally different than eat the asset. That's exactly correct.

But I think a bunch of people would be really pissed, which is fine because the technology would work. But if we want to talk about the asset, we have to just isolate and figure out what the fundamental issue is with the actual asset. Otherwise, this weird hodgepodge of like, eke technology, eat the asset is just going to, you know, get super messy. But once it's untangled, once it's actually, if we can actually get there, the L2 roadmap, the L1 scaling roadmap recently, right? And all of this stuff will fit into the things that are red lines that never change, like the emission algorithm being permanent, the other things that need to happen. And actually, everything will downstream answer itself. Because you cannot coherently talk about if

L2s are parasitic or they're not getting like tariffed or like charged enough. If it's all downstream of what the ETH asset is. All of this stuff is a side effect of no one knows what's going so they're trying to increase the floor of like we need to tax more of the L2s or no, we need to stop like talking about L2s because L2s were a mistake. We need to go the Solana way and like increase L1 and then push people to come back. And all of that actually is very, very damaging because when you try to entangle the asset with the technology because there's disagreement, you have no idea what you're doing because there's no definition of success. There's no fundamental like conclusion you're trying to get to because the top definition, you can't agree on

who the president of the United States. So then talking about why you're pointing to this person and that is this is not going to actually get to any kind of final conclusion, right? And so I actually think because Bitcoin has this figured out, you know, by accident or, you know, whatever, because of how it works, like Bitcoin L2s and even Ethereum L2s are actually more bullish for BTC, the asset than ETH the asset. That's how bad it currently is for ETH the asset, in my opinion, which is like as ETHL2s continue to get better and the ETH technology continues to make the world better by giving these platforms where people can actually hold assets in non-custodian ways, build AMSs, build, you know, DFI like FRAX, you know, Al-A, et cetera.

The thing that's going to benefit the most from that is not the ETH asset, it's BTC. Because you see BTC wrapped versions of them, BTC like EVM L2s, right, that are Ethereum L2s, try to create more store of value usage for BTC the asset. Whereas if you're talking about the floor, if you're talking about the industrial use case of ETH, right, the floor, the DCF, right, like the demand for ETH for block space, that barely moves. Even in like a world where like, you know, there's a thousand L2s the size of base, the floor might move up 10x, right? So we'll have 20K like ETH, right? But this usage of Bitcoin in that world, in that world where there's a thousand L2s that, that that have as much activity as BAS does today,

is a world in which that necessitates, not probably, necessitates where like BTC, the asset, is like $5 million because the entire world has moved on chain. The Ethereum culture has brought the world on chain, and it's done an amazing job, and then the floor price of ETH is only 10x, which is not great, right? Sam, this has given me a lot to chew on,

and I think probably the bankless listeners as well, so I appreciate you coming on and giving me this vision. And if you have any closing remarks, closing statements, big final conclusions, the floor is yours, my man. I know. I appreciate it. I love to always talk about these things. But the closing thing that I'll remind everyone on is I could not be more bullish eith the asset if these things are addressed. And they're addressable. Because like I was saying, if Ethereum accidentally went this way, there's no reason why I can't purposefully or accidentally go the other way. back. It was originally a store value commodity and probably the only other credible one than Nick one. So I'm very bullish, ETH. I think that more people discussing this stuff is required, but then not too much discussion. I'm an engineer and a builder and everything. And I think we'll see in the next six, eight months, if this actually, you know, changes history for the

ETH asset, because after a while we have to decide or the conclusion is there's no decision, right? So I'm very bullish Eith, and thanks for having me on, David. I really appreciate it, Sam. Bankless station, you guys, know the deal. Crypto is risky. You can lose what you put in, but nonetheless, we are headed west. It's not for everyone, but we're glad you're with us on the bankless journey. Thanks a lot.