Why didn't Trump mention Web3 in his speech?

Author: Meng Yan's Thoughts on Blockchain

On July 27, Trump's 50-minute speech at the Nashville Bitcoin Conference was hailed as another milestone event in the crypto asset industry. However, after the event, some statistics revealed that Trump did not mention Ethereum, blockchain, or Web3 at all, and the only time he mentioned Vitalik was later found to be a misunderstanding.

Why didn't Trump mention Web3? I certainly don't know the exact reason and can only ask the guy who wrote the speech for Trump, reportedly David Bailey, the CEO of Bitcoin Magazine. However, if we place this incident within the broader context of the crypto industry, it is not difficult to understand.

In short, Trump's speech essentially reflected the views of the progressive Bitcoin maximalists.

Bitcoin and Ethereum are the two leading figures in the crypto industry, often compared together. But in reality, they are fundamentally different and can be said to represent two completely different ideological factions: Bitcoin is "the use of uselessness," while Ethereum is "the use of usefulness."

The goal of Bitcoin is to serve as digital gold, the benchmark for value in the digital world, and nothing else, especially not for any practical use. Precisely because it has no practical use, you cannot analyze it from a utility perspective or measure its value with metrics. Therefore, Bitcoin is invincible because you cannot conceive of a logic to defeat it. On the other hand, Bitcoin leaves little room for application development and ecosystem building, making it difficult to construct anything on it. Many Bitcoin proponents continuously claim that Bitcoin is the first and should be the last blockchain application, that Bitcoin has exhausted the reasonable value of blockchain, and that everything Bitcoin has done is what blockchain should do, while everything else that Bitcoin hasn't done is what blockchain shouldn't do. All other blockchain innovations outside of Bitcoin are merely self-indulgent. These views are typical assertions of fundamentalist Bitcoin maximalism. This is certainly an extreme admiration for Bitcoin, but it also represents a surrender to Bitcoin's inability to support greater value as infrastructure.

Ethereum, on the other hand, had the initial goal of being a global computer, and now serves as the settlement layer for the digital economy, as well as a specialized computer, a useful entity that was designed as an ecological infrastructure from the start. This is Ethereum's advantage, but also its weakness. Since it is useful, its utility can be broken down and measured based on various metrics, such as performance, TVL, user count, throughput, and so on. Because Ethereum is useful, theoretically, if you create a blockchain that surpasses Ethereum in all metrics, that would be a more useful blockchain and could defeat Ethereum. Since 2017, countless narratives of Ethereum Killers have emerged, some of which once achieved high valuations, and the logic behind this is precisely that.

So, one could liken Bitcoin to a large ball, perfectly round, but you cannot build anything on top of it. Ethereum is like a flat slab, providing good foundational conditions for building on top, but it is inherently weaker than Bitcoin.

In this speech, although Trump talked a lot, it essentially revolved around reinforcing the Wall Street Bitcoin logic, which recognizes Bitcoin's value as digital gold, expresses confidence in its value, and offers policy assurances post-election, building momentum wave after wave, but that is all; it did not touch on other aspects and completely ignored the topic of how blockchain is changing the paradigm of internet applications.

Bitcoin and Ethereum offer different promises: Bitcoin stands firm in its position as digital gold, continuously increasing its market value, while Ethereum lays the groundwork to support applications like DeFi, Web3, and RWA.

I believe Trump's understanding of this industry cannot be that specific; therefore, his speech mainly reflected the long-standing position of the folks at Bitcoin Magazine, which is that we have finally established Bitcoin as a mainstream compliant asset, and now we can replicate all the various businesses and derivatives around this new asset in the mainstream financial circle. What gold had in the past, Bitcoin now has. Wall Street tends to favor this kind of narrative. As long as clients enjoy trading, there are commissions to be earned.

In contrast, creating new technologies, tools, platforms, and application paradigms is what Silicon Valley likes to do. Therefore, we cannot expect Wall Street to be particularly proactive about creating DeFi, Web3, RWA, or industrial blockchains on Ethereum; we first need to achieve some notable results, and then Wall Street will join in.

Of course, this does not mean that if Trump's statements are truly implemented, they would have no significance for DeFi, Web3, and RWA. The significance is still considerable. First, a large influx of funds into digital assets will also impact these upper-level fields. On the other hand, Trump's point about changing the SEC is very intriguing. Although Gensler is widely disliked, to be fair, he has essentially kept a green light for Bitcoin during his tenure and has not made things overly difficult. If viewed solely from Bitcoin's perspective, Gensler may not score high, but he certainly passes. Gensler's real conservatism is reflected in his strong obstruction of the Ethereum ecosystem, especially Web3, particularly given that Hester Peirce's "Safe Harbor for Tokens" proposal has already been drafted but remains shelved, severely hindering the development of Web3. Therefore, replacing Gensler may not significantly impact Bitcoin, but it could be beneficial for Web3.

If the U.S. wants to become a haven for Web3, the SEC's attitude, rather than Wall Street's, is more critical. Only by allowing Web3 projects to use tokens for user incentives and governance in a natural and reasonable manner, while implementing effective regulation and firmly cracking down on scammers and fraudsters, can Web3 gain a longer developmental cycle and actually grow a business flywheel. Only in this way can the industry truly break free from the cycle of boom and bust.

I do not know how deeply Trump understands this issue, but it seems that Kamala Harris is unlikely to move in this direction. The more someone believes they represent the historical direction of progress, the more reckless they are when infringing on personal freedoms and rights. Therefore, this U.S. election is indeed related to the interests of the Web3 industry, and let us wait and see.