The Future of Ethereum: Is There Still Investment Value?

In the comments at the end of articles these days, many readers have expressed their disappointment with Ethereum's performance in this round.

In fact, not only these readers, but I have also expressed my disappointment multiple times in my articles.

But disappointment aside, we still need to analyze the reasons behind it rationally:

Is it a problem with Ethereum itself? Or is it a problem with the entire ecosystem?

If it is a problem with Ethereum itself, have these issues been resolved in other blockchain projects?

First, let me state my conclusion:

I still hold my position in Ethereum, and that hasn't changed at all; I haven't swapped Ethereum for other smart contract blockchain tokens; and I still have a long-term optimistic view of Ethereum.

I remember that in previous articles, I have mentioned my three criteria for evaluating a layer one blockchain project:

How decentralized is its operation?

How is its community?

How is its team?

Today, my evaluation criteria remain unchanged.

According to these three standards, the answers I arrive at are quite simple.

Among all layer one blockchains that support Turing-complete smart contracts:

Ethereum has the best degree of decentralization in its operation, and Vitalik is still doing everything possible to promote its further decentralization.

Its community remains the strongest and most cohesive.

Its team continues to unwaveringly uphold Satoshi Nakamoto's philosophy and is methodically advancing the project, even though the difficulty is increasing and the pace is becoming more staggered.

Ethereum is far from perfect and has many issues (such as being criticized for the foundation's lack of transparency, becoming increasingly bureaucratic, etc.). A careful study might reveal 100 or even 1000 shortcomings. But I still have to say that looking across the entire crypto ecosystem, I truly cannot find another smart contract public chain that surpasses Ethereum in these three aspects.

Some "problems" of Ethereum criticized in various articles, in my view, are not problems of Ethereum at all. For example, some criticize the Ethereum team for not focusing on application development.

The development of applications should not be the primary focus of Ethereum. The Ethereum team's focus should be on building the most decentralized, neutral, and censorship-resistant infrastructure, creating a "good nest" where any phoenix (application) that flies into this nest can settle down and thrive.

As for what kind of phoenix (application) this "nest" can attract, that should be left to the infinitely creative hackers and geeks around the world.

Another example is that some articles criticize Ethereum's value capture being taken away by layer two scaling solutions.

There is no need to worry about this.

Layer two scaling is still part of the Ethereum ecosystem, and its security ultimately relies on Ethereum, which determines that the overall ecosystem's value will eventually return to Ethereum. The value will first go to layer two scaling and then spill over to Ethereum. This will only make the entire Ethereum ecosystem stronger and raise the bar higher.

Many readers have mentioned that Ethereum's price performance is not as good as that of some other blockchains, believing that those blockchains may have long-term potential that exceeds Ethereum.

I have never used short-term price performance to measure a project's long-term potential.

If we look back at Ethereum's growth journey, we can appreciate the hardships and challenges it has faced to reach its current status as the "king of smart contract public chains."

How many incidents, conflicts, and attacks has it endured?

It has always been under the spotlight, and any of its problems cannot escape scrutiny.

Without this kind of hellish tempering, it would not have achieved its current status.

This hellish tempering is not only a challenge for the project itself but also for the project team, the project community, and especially the spiritual leaders.

When we consider whether a project has the potential to topple Ethereum's position, we might as well think:

When that project sits on the "throne," can it withstand the tests that Ethereum has endured? Can its team, community, and spiritual leaders endure the trials that Ethereum has faced?

The "throne" is not so easy to sit on.

If I had to ask why Ethereum's price has not performed as well as some other blockchain tokens in this cycle?

I thought seriously, and if we purely look at applications, it seems that apart from MEME coins performing actively on some other blockchains, I can't think of any other new applications.

But can MEME coins be considered an innovation in applications? Even if they are, can they sustain themselves in the long run?

If the price increase of a project's token does not come from a sustainable application innovation, I would regard such a price increase as a short-term market fluctuation rather than a fundamental factor that changes the project's long-term potential.

So I would ignore such short-term price comparisons.

In fact, what has impressed me the most in this cycle is Bitcoin's innovation, especially the innovations led by inscriptions. But unfortunately, after the protocol innovations, the Bitcoin ecosystem has almost stalled in application innovation.

Looking at the entire crypto ecosystem, there has been a lack of noteworthy application innovations in this cycle.

Returning to the questions I raised at the beginning of the article:

Is it a problem with Ethereum itself? Or is it a problem with the entire ecosystem?

My answer is: The fundamental reason for Ethereum's price stagnation in this cycle is the lack of application innovation, but this issue is not only a problem for the Ethereum ecosystem; it is a challenge faced by the entire crypto ecosystem.

If it is a problem with Ethereum itself, have these issues been resolved in other blockchain projects?

My answer is: This problem has not been resolved in other blockchain ecosystems either.

In fact, when it comes to comparing price performance, I think more about why Ethereum's price relative to Bitcoin has been continuously declining in this bear market—from about 15 Ethereum for 1 Bitcoin in the last bull market to over 20 Ethereum for 1 Bitcoin now.

I believe the reason here is likely still due to the lack of application innovation.

After the U.S. government loosened regulations for institutional investors in this cycle, institutional investors began to eye this ecosystem.

But when they found that the entire ecosystem was lacking in applications and had a scarcity of users, and they could hardly find any "application value" they could understand, how much could they invest?

We can't expect institutions like BlackRock to buy MEME coins, right? They probably wouldn't be interested in DeFi tokens that lack value empowerment either.

So in this case, the only options left for them that are controllable in risk, have good liquidity, and high consensus are almost just Bitcoin.

Following this logic, it becomes much easier to understand Bitcoin's price dominance over other tokens.

But I believe this is definitely not the norm because the crypto ecosystem cannot always rely on Bitcoin. For the crypto ecosystem to truly change our lives in the future, there must be genuine application innovations and new business models. And I still believe that these innovations are most likely to occur within the Ethereum ecosystem.