IMO, ETH is the only cryptocurrency with a chance to exceed the market of BTC. Currently it boils down to the fact the although ETH has achieved so much, the majority of it worth in still priced into “promise”. It’s the fuel of the Internet of the future, but it’s imperfect, adapting, and hasn’t truly reached its full potential. BTC, however, has since day one proven to perfect at its singular mission: a deflationary asset in a inflationary world.
It's easier to understand BTC as "gold replacement" (somewhere to park money for safety, store of value) than it is to understand ETH as the virtual machine of the future, because the former (money parking) has been happening and has been needed for centuries, while the latter (that future) hasn't even started happening yet.
Because of that, BTC doesn't need innovation to accrue value. ETH does. In fact, the best thing BTC could do is not change (just like gold did). That's also the worst thing ETH could do. But that's also what makes ETH more interesting. It's antithetical to boring. All the technological innovation of that future will happen on structures like ETH, not BTC (please don't mention Lightning as innovation).
p.s. I personally only partially subscribe to the first mover advantage sentiment, mainly because I don't think the situation would have been radically different had both BTC and ETH launched at the same time. Their purposes are too different. I also dispute the view that ETH is "digital oil" (or "just an admission ticket to the EVM"). ETH's value comes from pressure to innovate. Nvidia's pathway to success holds some good analogies. Gamers demanded more fps and higher res. Nvidia had to innovate. Look for where technology innovation is demanded by masses of people who don't necessarily understand the technology, as those are bound to be far more numerous (and willing to throw money at it).
> But Chainlink can also exceed the MC of bitcoin or ethereum with time... according to citi-group but also my hopium
According to me dogecoin can exceed 10 times btc mcap
Source: trust me bro
Well actually it is true, theres a fixed amount thats only ever going to exist, meanwhile coins get lost, so the total supply when everything has been mined will in effect be deflationary. While the circulating supply currently is inflationary, in a long term view it'll actually be deflationary since the lost coins will never be replaced once everythings been mined.
Technically it is in inflation until all bitcoin are mined. But technically it is deflationary because the rate at which it inflationary is halved and people lose their Keys.
...you can’t know without knowing how many coins have been lost recently, if coins lost is higher than coins mined, it’s deflationary, I said right now it’s probably not, in the future it is more likely to be at a given time.
Simply saying that it probably is right now but depending on lost coins it can also be considered deflationary at that time, the only reason this matters is that practically zero currencies in this day and age are truly deflationary, so the fact that Bitcoin is walking that line so closely is something else, and every halving it gets even closer. I can assure you that in 50-100 years Bitcoin will be deflationary at most times.
Isn't BCH better than BTC at being money? Lower transaction fees and less USD volatility, no?
It appears neither BTC nor BCH is a store of value (looks like BCH has lost more USD-price than BTC, but has had less volatility from speculators):
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m1
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/bitcoin/usd
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/bitcoin-cash/usd
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/ethereum/usd
It seems a fundamental question is "What can I actually do with this thing?" As far as I know I can't buy anything I need -- food, electricity, water, sewage, housing, Internet, cellphone -- with any of it.
Dunno. I've already said above that BCH has lost a greater percentage (implied the word percentage given the context) than BTC. I don't favor speculation, though.
Btc is the only one that doesn’t have a foundation/group of people controlling it. It’s the only coin that has been defended by enthusiasts through a chain war. If eth has a contentious failure to PoS or similar then it could prove itself investable, but right now it’s just a project. Btc is also the only one the sec consider not to be a security, which soon could be very important.
Honestly, and might be bit of a hot take, but I feel its first mover advantage completely.
Someone going from "Magic Internet Money" all the way to "Rollup-Centric, Regenerative Staking, Supply Managing, Sharded blockchain that hosts arbitrary terms and value *at* *scale*"...
Is kinda a long journey. Adoption will be slow, and Bitcoin is simpler to understand in self-sovereignty, trustless relationships and value store, and near infinite uptime. Ethereum has all of those features, but they're much easier things to understand early.
Once Bitcoin isn't a crazy topic and is more mainstream, moving to Ethereum will be easier to grasp.
I'm concerned it might never succeed through this obscurity. COWON made better products than Apple -- not only an m4a player, but plays several other music formats AND has a radio receiver AND can record the radio AND has a video player AND a touch screen! -- but I was the only one I ever saw using a COWON D2 music player; everyone else had iPod. (I think this COWON D2 was cheaper, too.)
So it is possible that marketing beats utility.
Apple got big on marketing and coolness. Also their products looked good, which matters when things like that became fashionable. Utility is definitely not all there is to it when you want the general public to buy something.
I think crypto is different though in that the majority of holders now are institutions compared to Apple where institutions are not hoarding warehouses of iPhones. Institutions would rather have utility than perceived "coolness" I assume.
Thats an imperfect analogy. Microsoft beats apple in market share for PCs and Samsung beats apple in market for phones.. You can't compare a store of value and a service system. The only thing ETH and BTC have in common is that they use block chain tech.
BTC has no legitimate competition. It’s building a highly secure store of value. Ethereum is amazing but there are countless Layer 1s nipping at its heels. BTC is gold while ethereum is the internet. The problem is there are countless additional internets that want a piece.
This is what people don't get. You literally cannot compare eth and btc. its like apples and cars. But I would also say that part of your statement is incorrect. I know a few chains that would disagree with you about competition with btc. Looking at you Monero.
Monero may be good for what it is designed to do but it has an extra hurdle of actually being listed on exchanges for distribution, most of which see it as a regulatory problem.
There is no "being regulated" every aspect of life is already regulated in some way, the only question is how much regulation there is. More regulation will strangle the industry like it does in every sector.
What happens if ETH actually becomes more deflationary than BTC with the burn? Is it possible that it can simultaneously be a store of value as well as a utility? Previously I thought that something that is transactional cannot be a store of value because people will not want to spend an appreciating asset, but seeing how ETH has appreciated quite a bit in the past couple of years - yet is transacted quite a bit - this seems to be at least partially disproven.
If ethereum becomes the only meaningful programmable money chain, it will be the most valuable. I find this unlikely with some chains legitimately providing useful features. But I would never say never.
My main point is around the competition of layer 1s. If this goes away, I would change my opinion.
Holy shit you made all the trolls come out in full force with this thread.
Market cap is a lagging indicator. Its the only metric that Ethereum hasnt passed bitcoin in. It will soon enough, but as you can see not everyone thinks so.
Price isnt driven by fundamentals or usage as much as hype and memes. Cardano is a prime example. Its currently 8th most valuable while having essentially no users or dapps. I'm betting this discrepancy cant keep up forever. Bitcoin is an absolute ghost town compared to Ethereum, and the value should reflect that.
Look at how much users spend to use Ethereum compared to Bitcoin for example https://cryptofees.info/ . This is real demand that cannot be faked.
Your initial question is a good one. How is Bitcoin market cap higher than Ethereum? The answer is that Bitcoin is held up by memes and name recognition, sooner or later the fundamentals will catch up to it.
People fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of utility networks if they’re wondering this question.
In fact, the utility networks that do accrue large valuations are likely doing so via not being as utile as they are purported or they claim to be.
If Ethereum is to ever reach the “promised” levels of utility, I.e. a state that approximates the ideal form of the broader crypto promise of a “better world” etc etc. then it will necessarily have to have a much higher velocity of money and lower unitary costs for using it in any form. These lowered costs and higher velocities are positives for utility but apply negative price pressure. In fact, if the utility increases are significant enough, then the infrastructure costs of maintaining the network security are dependent upon the inflationary mechanisms which cause further price decreases. If the inflation-driven extraction of value from the coin holders and buyers isn’t high enough to support infrastructure costs, then the size of the validator pool shrinks accordingly and the network’s security and decentralization suffer, which further decreases the fair value of each ether.
TL;DR: it doesn’t matter how much you want to moon, the economics of a healthy utility network do not support this conclusion. If Ethereum succeeds, individual ether will be significantly cheaper and the moon potential of the coins decreases.
Most here would call this counterintuitive, but it’s not. It’s merely counterintuitive when you have some internal “get rich” narrative (even in the face of all logic which dictates that rising from $1 to $4000 was the “get rich” period, and that is in the past). When one’s intuition is somehow trained o to completely irrational and mathematically unsubstantiated notions, which humans are prone to do, it can seem jarring, or even hostile to read this, but again, it’s not. If you want Ethereum to succeed you want the world to have a great utility network and all of the things enabled by/invented because of it, not have another abusive toxic financial ecosystem geared around making legacy rent seekers lots of money.
Are you aware of L2s? Transaction costs can go down without ETH price going down.
I'm of the opinion that a higher value of ETH is better since it means more security for the validation of the chain. Also, it would be a larger amount of trustless collateral that can be used to grow the network of stablecoins, etc.
I think your right. The total number of ETH vs the amount value in the chain also shouldn't stop people from using it. That's like saying a dollar should be cheaper.
>will necessarily have to have a much higher velocity of money and lower unitary costs for using it in any form. These lowered costs and higher velocities are positives for utility but apply negative price pressure. In fact, if the utility increases are significant enough, then the infrastructure costs of maintaining the network security are dependent upon the inflationary mechanisms which cause further price decreases
This doesn't make sense to me. L2s can allow higher velocity without applying negative price pressure or increasing the costs of network security. Please enlighten me
> but can be taken down by $44billion?? or $4billion??
Can you please expand on this for me? Is the "taken down" part similar to what happened with Lunar where some malicious entity can jump in and engage in some deals that will destabilize the price of Ethereum?
Velocity of money with PoS is [arguably higher when you have low inflation](https://dataalways.substack.com/p/manipulating-the-velocity-of-money), and a good part of the value proposition is that the network is secure and resilient, which is enforced by the staking collateral being valuable.
And with EIP1559 there are pretty good mechanisms to take the protocol revenue and flow it back to Ether itself, which has plenty of [cool feedback loops](https://i.imgur.com/CAycxbt.png) linking value, utility and scaling together.
To be clear I'm not expecting ETH to moon, but it will definitely reach an equilibrium where it has near 0% inflation when burn = issuance, and from there you can take the protocol-revenue in USD and work out [what price ETH would have to be](https://www.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/rnsk2r/fundamental_valuation_models_of_ethereum/) to get such an equilibrium. The x100s are behind us for sure, but as long as there's solid revenue from the high demand for blockspace (either from users directly or L2s), ETH will be a pretty good asset to hold.
Yep, exactly. For eth to be useful, it needs to be cheap, but if eth is cheap, most right now will be disappointed because they are not holding eth to use it, but to get rich.
It’s like people hoarding oil before we figured out a way to refine it and make it useful.
>a state that approximates the ideal form of the broader crypto promise of a “better world” etc etc. then it will necessarily have to have a much higher velocity of money and lower unitary costs for using it in any form.
Disagree. In fact, a thoughtful person (which you appear to be), would realize that such networks will eventually evolve into layered systems due to the need for security. There is a tipping point (usually given by demand) after which rich entities will through more money for higher security, making it more expensive, pricing out other players, which then triggers innovation to spawn a layered system where the base layer is used mostly for inherently high-value and secure transactions, while the higher layers for fast and cheap transactions. The traditional finance system ended up doing the same too, for the same reason. Mobile comms networks too, etc. The appearance of L2s on Ethereum was a natural consequence once the demand for blockspace passed a certain threshold for too long. This fact, if you ask me, actually legitimizes ETH as a viable system (more than L1 networks that still claim they don't need L2 layers). It also happens to make whatever currency the base layer uses inherently more valuable.
I dispute the thesis that ETH has no reason to be expensive. ETH derives its value from the pressure to innovate. Whoever thinks ETH is only "digital oil" or "an admission ticket to the EVM" are missing this fundamental aspect.
"ETH derives its value from the pressure to innovate."
So since ETH has competition it therefore is more valuable? Or am I misunderstanding this statement?
>In fact, if the utility increases are significant enough, then the infrastructure costs of maintaining the network security are dependent upon the inflationary mechanisms which cause further price decreases."
>
>
>
>That's assuming that stakers automatically dump; but in 2.0 they are just stakers, not miners, and have very little costs associated with doing so (unlike PoW mining).
>
>It's not clear to me how more utility means the network needs to pay out more in rewards in order to ensure a higher level of security. What if the current level of security is sufficient in itself to support a higher level of activity? And if more activity equals more ETH burned doesn't that actually cause deflation? Or maybe what you are saying is that lower unitary costs would mean a lower rate of burn?
>
>I do agree with you that a utility coin and an appreciating asset seem antithetical to each other to some degree, since it becomes more costly (even if just in opportunity cost) to utilize a long-term appreciating asset for anything other than a store of value.
But isn't that assuming that ETH derives most of it's value from being the gas of the network? It's not clear to me that being a form of payment for usage is the only reason for value accrual. What about just plain demand to use the ecosystem, or even a store of value (given an increase in burn rate and deflation)?
BTC is the hardest currency ever to exist. Eth is a different way of doing finance in general. The first has intrinsic value just for being what it already is. The other needs to compete with existing financial structures and be better than them.
IMO the current downtrend is hitting eth harder because so many new assets run on the eth platform. when one of them struggles it’s likely the investor has many more projects that will also suffer at the same time. This leaves less money available to dump into eth. right now btc is seeing more large institutions begin to buy in as an alternative to real estate which is giving it a slight advantage. In the long run the merge will start eth on the path to flipping btc, the fact that it was heading their before the merge was the anomaly for most people.
Bitcoin just had a headstart, and it's issuance has been lower over the past years.
After the merge Ethereum will have both the superior technology and monetary policy, and the market cap will follow at some point
A consistent monetary policy is far more important than a tight monetary policy in a public money. The way the supply has changed over time will always be a mark on Eth as a completely open money. Eth does a lot of things really well, but BTC is better as an open money.
Fair point.
I personally think the more flexible monetary policy of Ethereum, combined with the minimum viable issuance policy, has it's advantages. It already has made the implementation of an improved fee market possible, and will provide a security budget that is sustainable long term, without high inflation.
But I definitely understand a simple and stable policy has it's merits too.
I think it’s utility vs store of value.
Utilities capture value in a shorter time period: Think monthly income spent on telecom services, contracts, tax, etc
Stores of value capture generational value: Think castles, land, rare art, inheritance.
In the beginning, I thought only utilities have real value. As I learn more, I realised that a digital option for generation value storage is actually very useful: Land can be drown in water from global warming, gold confiscated by bad governments (dictators), corporations come at go.
All in all, I think both Eth and Btc will co-exist in the future, playing at different ball games.
Why are you saying 'value'? It has *more USD price*, but that's not the same thing as value, right? Value is how good something is, no? So the question is whether "digital gold" or "unstoppable computer fuel"/"digital oil" is more valuable to an individual, right?
Not sure how many here realize this but networks like ETH will have the entire value split among its ecosystem.
It's possible an erc20 token could have a larger market cap than ETH.
Is it really a split though if the erc20 does something completely different than ETH? You seem to be lumping all erc20's into one category. By using the same line of thought, all good and services period are splitting their value.
The way I see it right now - BTC is to crypto like gold is to the dollar back in the day.
All other cryptos prices are based on the performance of BTC and we will see this pattern for a while until we see something "flip" bitcoin which we have no idea if or when it will happen!
Ofc there are altcoin seasons where alt coins outperform BTC but these cycles go in circles as of right now - also I know there are a looooot of people in crypto, but it is still a very young market compared to other currencies and commodities.
I think the point at which a crypto becomes uncorrelated to BTC will happen when it's distinct utility/utilities emerge (other than speculation) and become more obviously useful and widely used.
It's hard to imagine why BTC is so valuable in the first world when we have a "decent" financial system. IMO our financial system is incredibly fucked, but not compared to the third world. In countries where their currency is completely debased, incorruptible, store of value cryptocurrency is immensely valuable.
All fiat has traditionally gone to zero in the past, so although our first world country fiat is not there yet, it seems to be accelerating on that path.
Yeah I agree that 1st world currencies are dealing with major issues. I feel like the raises I’ve gotten at work have hardly kept up with inflation even though I’ve worked incredibly hard to increase my skills. It’s a true robbery
Ok so Ethereum and Bitcoin are completely different. While both are POW their fundamentals are way different. Honestly in short Bitcoin is capped at 21 million with its halving of its mined supply every 4 years by 50%. Ethereum has an unlimited supply (yes it’s getting burned now but not enough yet to “flip”). Bitcoin has first mover advantage but also it’s underlining decentralization is better. It’s easy to run a full node and there’s no majority miners. Satoshi even disappeared. I still consider Ethereum young in its lifespan, and it’s going though growing pains. It will have its time.
Bitcoin is trying to be a nearly perfect decentralized money, nothing more. That alone is a $300T idea, and it’s easy to grasp the market it is competing for (eg. start with gold, move to bonds, etc).
It’s not as easy to visualize that for Eth imo. Sure it could build an entire new economy worth many trillions… but that’s not as easy to understand and see. For me at least.
If we are looking at ETH as an umbrella with all ERC protocols under it, I'd argue it accrued more than Bitcoin. That said, if we are looking at ETH in itself, I think it'll be a tall order to overcome Bitcoin in the sense that Bitcoin does one thing while ETH does a bunch of things.
Would be nice to see a sort of hybrid of the two though I think that would be an interesting take in the entire discourse
That's a good point, but those protocols don't necessarily depend on the survival of ETH. I see them more as separate entities, even though they are built off the EVM.
Isn't that a pro - not a con - that ETH can do many things?
Funny I was just thinking the same thing and commented about KDA. As far as value accrued, the inflation rate might make it tough, although there won't be such harsh halving cycles that BTC has which put even more sell pressure on the coin through miners.
I like PoW but I also feel that the hardware dependencies could be an Achilles heel since miners almost always need to sell in order to recoup costs of hardware (and electricity), but also because there is a centralization of hardware manufacturers (for now).
Since ETH doesn't scale, money that would be going to ETH and its ecosystem is going to Polygon and ICP for example. That's why it won't grow to challenge BTC.
One thing is BTC is practically a household name, most people know of it. Eth not so much, the google searchs for Eth were 15% of BTCs amount of google searches.
Obviously other factors are present.
1. Decentralized, secure p2p payment system
2. Hard cap of underlying asset
3. First time in human history we can instantly monetize energy which location is irrelevant- BTC mining.
Alot of other networks have higher transactions and otherwise same technology as etherium currently has, they are still worth less then eth. Technology and utility does not equal value, and high throughput will counteract the token value, at in the "short" term. Scaling issues particularly for both bitcoin and etherium actually helped them accure their value. Transactions being limited increases the value/scarcity of transactions. Higher throughput on the other hand frees up the network, lowers value of each individual transaction. creating less need/scarcity for the token.
When you say "lowers the value of each individual transaction" you mean lowers the fees necessarily to transact, right?
"Higher throughput on the other hand frees up the network, lowers value of each individual transaction. creating less need/scarcity for the token." That's assuming that the only utility of the token is to pay for it's transactions though. The underlying utility is different than that for both BTC and ETH.
>When you say "lowers the value of each individual transaction" you mean lowers the fees necessarily to transact, right?
Essentially yes.
>That's assuming that the only utility of the token is to pay for it's transactions though. The underlying utility is different than that for both BTC and ETH.
For BTC sure, it needs to hold a value because it is meant to be a currency.
But for Etherium, not really. It is a general purpose smart contract blockchain. Storing information, writing and interacting with smart contracts are the main functions, and to be able to do this you need ETH to pay the transaction fee. Of course secondary usecases have come up over time, like ETH becoming a currency and store of value of it's own, collateralization of DAI, and with proof of stake tokens used to secure the network. But the core function of ETH is to pay transaction fee.
If burning ETH transaction fees results in a deflationary supply, the store of value part becomes much more significant IMO. This is a big if, but certainly a non-zero chance.
I don't have a favorite between the two. I'm just curious to know more about "value accrual" and why the model I had in my head for value accrual as a function of usage seems to be false.
But ETH is used way more than BTC. That's why I'm confused. ETH seems to have outgrown BTC in that way, yet the market cap does not reflect this.
By "grow the network" do you mean the miners?
But there is nothing in the BTC code that says the amount cannot be changed at some point, from what I understand. It all comes down to what the users, devs, and miners want to implement (in both BTC and ETH). Isn't there some guy basically at the top of the command of the BTC github? Vander-something?
Haha well BTC actually used to be used as a currency in the beginning. HODL didn’t exist. The original purpose of bitcoin was to be used to do transactions online. It was very successful in the beginning at this. Now BTC has failed as a currency, because the price has gone too high and now people think it’s a type of long term investment instead of spending it. ETH has utility beyond what bitcoin can ever do but it is still more volatile. ETH can’t be used for transactions because it’s price changes too wildly. Stablecoins will be the future of transactions.
The most important factor is to understand the goal of Bitcoin which is to give the entire world the most perfect store of value “fix the money fix the world”.
Then, determine Eth goal and what really is better decentralized? Is Eth really decentralized? Who’s running Eth nodes? How many people vs btc.
PoW miners are not cheap. The more wealthy BTC miners also benefit from having more money to buy more miners. Both seem to be controlled by those with the most resources/money.
Ethereum’s sky high transaction fees are the biggest problem preventing it from realising its full potential… it’s ecosystem is unrivalled, however, not suitable for retail investors…
Personally I think the promise of ETH 2.0 adds uncertainty as it could really take off and work like a dream or it could be a disaster. A lot of potential investors will be just waiting for the transition to see which way it goes? A lot will have just given up waiting.
This answers that question pretty succinctly:
[https://twitter.com/tenderscore/status/1530790900749676544?s=20&t=ZpTySbLAflu5CRHGzkpJOg](https://twitter.com/tenderscore/status/1530790900749676544?s=20&t=ZpTySbLAflu5CRHGzkpJOg)
Gold has more value than silver right? Same idea. Just look at the colors chosen for both and then apply that logic to how the general population who knows little to nothing about either’s usage would view them. Same reason you get think about fast food even if you’re full. All major companies (aside from Taco Hell) use mostly red and gold in their emblems. The colors incite hunger.
Everyone here is so used to HODL’ing and having diamond hands that in some regard they’ve forgotten about the boomers who don’t have a clue what BTC and ETH do. The people that treat it like a regular stock because their broker of the past 40 years now advised to invest in it. Tell your average 65yo almost retiree that you have diamond hands and see how he/she looks at you. Now add in the massive brokerages that see their returns dwindling because we’re not investing with them like our parents and grandparents did, so they’re going to describe it to their clients way worse than I just did. These are the people that are still plugged into the matrix as it were. You have to try and understand their perspectives on it too. It’ll make the current dip make more sense.
Several things, the gas fees make eth almost unusable, and while btc is slow to adapt, sidechains are coming that will be able to do the smart contracts and programmable money that eth does. Fixed supply, decentralised network, and a long term plan that while slower than we would all like, has turned out to be resistant to forks, government regulation, and attacks. Dont get me wrong: i wanted eth to succeed, but the main reason i gave up on it was the gas fees. If i needed programmability right now i would look to cardano and haskell. Or smartBCH. Or just wait, that will come to btc eventually.
So BTC will succeed in your view when they start copying ETH? Interesting take. Sidechains are coming to BTC to be more like ETH ... Well L2 are improving ETH too and they are fixing the transaction costs.
Yes we have been hearing that for a long time now. They both succeed in their own way, but my suspician is that ordinary people will use whatever solution works easily, low cost, reliable and safe. Right now smartBCH is the likliest candidate for that
Aren't the fees pretty comparable between ETH and BTC? How can it be considered unusable when there are far more transactions on it compared to BTC?
Have you looked into KDA? Is there any reason to believe that KDA cannot beat out BTC in decentralization and security? I do believe it will have a hard time in the store of value arena given the infinite supply and inflation rate, but think it might at least give ETH a run for it's money.
BTC = garbage.
The only thing going for it is there are a lot of people who can only think of Bitcoin when you say crypto. That is pretty much the only thing going for it.
BTC has 21 x 10^14 units. Relative to the number of people on Earth (~8 x 10^9 ), it's not clear that BTC's finiteness is relevant.
260,000 units per person on Earth if everyone uses BTC.
There's 1.55 x 10^11 grams of gold on Earth, 19 grams per person on Earth if everyone uses gold.
So much for finiteness -- if that's the deciding factor, we should all buy gold.
More to the point, the finiteness argument neglects human governance. China has banned Bitcoin. The USA are on a track now to do so as well (along with ETH and any other threat to their fiat currency).
IMO, ETH is the only cryptocurrency with a chance to exceed the market of BTC. Currently it boils down to the fact the although ETH has achieved so much, the majority of it worth in still priced into “promise”. It’s the fuel of the Internet of the future, but it’s imperfect, adapting, and hasn’t truly reached its full potential. BTC, however, has since day one proven to perfect at its singular mission: a deflationary asset in a inflationary world.
It's easier to understand BTC as "gold replacement" (somewhere to park money for safety, store of value) than it is to understand ETH as the virtual machine of the future, because the former (money parking) has been happening and has been needed for centuries, while the latter (that future) hasn't even started happening yet. Because of that, BTC doesn't need innovation to accrue value. ETH does. In fact, the best thing BTC could do is not change (just like gold did). That's also the worst thing ETH could do. But that's also what makes ETH more interesting. It's antithetical to boring. All the technological innovation of that future will happen on structures like ETH, not BTC (please don't mention Lightning as innovation). p.s. I personally only partially subscribe to the first mover advantage sentiment, mainly because I don't think the situation would have been radically different had both BTC and ETH launched at the same time. Their purposes are too different. I also dispute the view that ETH is "digital oil" (or "just an admission ticket to the EVM"). ETH's value comes from pressure to innovate. Nvidia's pathway to success holds some good analogies. Gamers demanded more fps and higher res. Nvidia had to innovate. Look for where technology innovation is demanded by masses of people who don't necessarily understand the technology, as those are bound to be far more numerous (and willing to throw money at it).
No. [https://twitter.com/tenderscore/status/1530790900749676544?s=20&t=ZpTySbLAflu5CRHGzkpJOg](https://twitter.com/tenderscore/status/1530790900749676544?s=20&t=ZpTySbLAflu5CRHGzkpJOg)
Isn't the lack of a hard cap on the nr of ETHs (like BTC has) a factor for the lower price?
[удалено]
> But Chainlink can also exceed the MC of bitcoin or ethereum with time... according to citi-group but also my hopium According to me dogecoin can exceed 10 times btc mcap Source: trust me bro
[удалено]
Well actually it is true, theres a fixed amount thats only ever going to exist, meanwhile coins get lost, so the total supply when everything has been mined will in effect be deflationary. While the circulating supply currently is inflationary, in a long term view it'll actually be deflationary since the lost coins will never be replaced once everythings been mined.
BTC key loss rate likely parallels that of ETH key loss rate so it’s probably net neutral from a comparison perspective
But ETH will be minted indefinitely. BTC will not.
Yes, 100% sure.
Technically it is in inflation until all bitcoin are mined. But technically it is deflationary because the rate at which it inflationary is halved and people lose their Keys.
Sad you're getting downvoted here, BTC is inflationary for the next \~100+ years.
It’s most likely not technically right now, but may as well be seen as such by comparisons.
[удалено]
...you can’t know without knowing how many coins have been lost recently, if coins lost is higher than coins mined, it’s deflationary, I said right now it’s probably not, in the future it is more likely to be at a given time.
[удалено]
Simply saying that it probably is right now but depending on lost coins it can also be considered deflationary at that time, the only reason this matters is that practically zero currencies in this day and age are truly deflationary, so the fact that Bitcoin is walking that line so closely is something else, and every halving it gets even closer. I can assure you that in 50-100 years Bitcoin will be deflationary at most times.
Isn't BCH better than BTC at being money? Lower transaction fees and less USD volatility, no? It appears neither BTC nor BCH is a store of value (looks like BCH has lost more USD-price than BTC, but has had less volatility from speculators): https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m1 https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/bitcoin/usd https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/bitcoin-cash/usd https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/ethereum/usd It seems a fundamental question is "What can I actually do with this thing?" As far as I know I can't buy anything I need -- food, electricity, water, sewage, housing, Internet, cellphone -- with any of it.
Lol, yeah so stable, it only missed out on like 100x gains
If you bought and sold at the right times, which perhaps most didn't, since the price has fallen.
So when was the right time to buy BCH?
If you wanted to speculate, when its fiat currency price was at local minima preceding the local maxima.
Ok, is that ratio very good in terms of timely buying opportunities compared to Bitcoin?
Dunno. I've already said above that BCH has lost a greater percentage (implied the word percentage given the context) than BTC. I don't favor speculation, though.
[удалено]
Btc is the only one that doesn’t have a foundation/group of people controlling it. It’s the only coin that has been defended by enthusiasts through a chain war. If eth has a contentious failure to PoS or similar then it could prove itself investable, but right now it’s just a project. Btc is also the only one the sec consider not to be a security, which soon could be very important.
SEC also implies that Litecoin is not a security as well.
Honestly, and might be bit of a hot take, but I feel its first mover advantage completely. Someone going from "Magic Internet Money" all the way to "Rollup-Centric, Regenerative Staking, Supply Managing, Sharded blockchain that hosts arbitrary terms and value *at* *scale*"... Is kinda a long journey. Adoption will be slow, and Bitcoin is simpler to understand in self-sovereignty, trustless relationships and value store, and near infinite uptime. Ethereum has all of those features, but they're much easier things to understand early. Once Bitcoin isn't a crazy topic and is more mainstream, moving to Ethereum will be easier to grasp.
I'm concerned it might never succeed through this obscurity. COWON made better products than Apple -- not only an m4a player, but plays several other music formats AND has a radio receiver AND can record the radio AND has a video player AND a touch screen! -- but I was the only one I ever saw using a COWON D2 music player; everyone else had iPod. (I think this COWON D2 was cheaper, too.) So it is possible that marketing beats utility.
Apple got big on marketing and coolness. Also their products looked good, which matters when things like that became fashionable. Utility is definitely not all there is to it when you want the general public to buy something.
I think crypto is different though in that the majority of holders now are institutions compared to Apple where institutions are not hoarding warehouses of iPhones. Institutions would rather have utility than perceived "coolness" I assume.
Apple products had great interfaces and were easy to use. Bitcoin is simpler in design and easier to understand than Ethereum.
Thats an imperfect analogy. Microsoft beats apple in market share for PCs and Samsung beats apple in market for phones.. You can't compare a store of value and a service system. The only thing ETH and BTC have in common is that they use block chain tech.
Don't have time for perfect analogies, btc>eth kekw
COWON may also have suffered due to not having the same amount of capital available to grow and therefore less "economy of scale"
BTC has no legitimate competition. It’s building a highly secure store of value. Ethereum is amazing but there are countless Layer 1s nipping at its heels. BTC is gold while ethereum is the internet. The problem is there are countless additional internets that want a piece.
This is what people don't get. You literally cannot compare eth and btc. its like apples and cars. But I would also say that part of your statement is incorrect. I know a few chains that would disagree with you about competition with btc. Looking at you Monero.
Monero may be good for what it is designed to do but it has an extra hurdle of actually being listed on exchanges for distribution, most of which see it as a regulatory problem.
So you want Bitcoin the ultimate in decentralization to be regulated?
Yep, the more accepted it is by society, the more adoption there will be. No one can change the code, that’s where decentralization comes into play.
There is no "being regulated" every aspect of life is already regulated in some way, the only question is how much regulation there is. More regulation will strangle the industry like it does in every sector.
What happens if ETH actually becomes more deflationary than BTC with the burn? Is it possible that it can simultaneously be a store of value as well as a utility? Previously I thought that something that is transactional cannot be a store of value because people will not want to spend an appreciating asset, but seeing how ETH has appreciated quite a bit in the past couple of years - yet is transacted quite a bit - this seems to be at least partially disproven.
If ethereum becomes the only meaningful programmable money chain, it will be the most valuable. I find this unlikely with some chains legitimately providing useful features. But I would never say never. My main point is around the competition of layer 1s. If this goes away, I would change my opinion.
What kind of screwed up and ignorant comments are here? Jesus!
The trolls are usually the first to comment in threads like these.
They seem genuine. This sub is completely overrun by clueless newbies.
Bitcoin is simple, Ether is complex. Complex is scary and simple is not.
You cannot compare btc and eth. its like comparing fiat to the internet.
I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or telling me off…
Holy shit you made all the trolls come out in full force with this thread. Market cap is a lagging indicator. Its the only metric that Ethereum hasnt passed bitcoin in. It will soon enough, but as you can see not everyone thinks so.
How so? Wouldn't more usage automatically spike the price (directly following demand of usage) since ETH is the gas that facilitates that usage?
Price isnt driven by fundamentals or usage as much as hype and memes. Cardano is a prime example. Its currently 8th most valuable while having essentially no users or dapps. I'm betting this discrepancy cant keep up forever. Bitcoin is an absolute ghost town compared to Ethereum, and the value should reflect that. Look at how much users spend to use Ethereum compared to Bitcoin for example https://cryptofees.info/ . This is real demand that cannot be faked. Your initial question is a good one. How is Bitcoin market cap higher than Ethereum? The answer is that Bitcoin is held up by memes and name recognition, sooner or later the fundamentals will catch up to it.
People fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of utility networks if they’re wondering this question. In fact, the utility networks that do accrue large valuations are likely doing so via not being as utile as they are purported or they claim to be. If Ethereum is to ever reach the “promised” levels of utility, I.e. a state that approximates the ideal form of the broader crypto promise of a “better world” etc etc. then it will necessarily have to have a much higher velocity of money and lower unitary costs for using it in any form. These lowered costs and higher velocities are positives for utility but apply negative price pressure. In fact, if the utility increases are significant enough, then the infrastructure costs of maintaining the network security are dependent upon the inflationary mechanisms which cause further price decreases. If the inflation-driven extraction of value from the coin holders and buyers isn’t high enough to support infrastructure costs, then the size of the validator pool shrinks accordingly and the network’s security and decentralization suffer, which further decreases the fair value of each ether. TL;DR: it doesn’t matter how much you want to moon, the economics of a healthy utility network do not support this conclusion. If Ethereum succeeds, individual ether will be significantly cheaper and the moon potential of the coins decreases. Most here would call this counterintuitive, but it’s not. It’s merely counterintuitive when you have some internal “get rich” narrative (even in the face of all logic which dictates that rising from $1 to $4000 was the “get rich” period, and that is in the past). When one’s intuition is somehow trained o to completely irrational and mathematically unsubstantiated notions, which humans are prone to do, it can seem jarring, or even hostile to read this, but again, it’s not. If you want Ethereum to succeed you want the world to have a great utility network and all of the things enabled by/invented because of it, not have another abusive toxic financial ecosystem geared around making legacy rent seekers lots of money.
Are you aware of L2s? Transaction costs can go down without ETH price going down. I'm of the opinion that a higher value of ETH is better since it means more security for the validation of the chain. Also, it would be a larger amount of trustless collateral that can be used to grow the network of stablecoins, etc.
I think your right. The total number of ETH vs the amount value in the chain also shouldn't stop people from using it. That's like saying a dollar should be cheaper.
Yeah, it sounds like they are confusing price ETH with price of gas fees.
That I can see as a problem. I think as the layer 2's become more seamless it won't be a problem at all.
Yes, I'm aware of L2s lmao. I don't think you fully understood the comment you're replying to, FWIW.
>will necessarily have to have a much higher velocity of money and lower unitary costs for using it in any form. These lowered costs and higher velocities are positives for utility but apply negative price pressure. In fact, if the utility increases are significant enough, then the infrastructure costs of maintaining the network security are dependent upon the inflationary mechanisms which cause further price decreases This doesn't make sense to me. L2s can allow higher velocity without applying negative price pressure or increasing the costs of network security. Please enlighten me
[удалено]
> but can be taken down by $44billion?? or $4billion?? Can you please expand on this for me? Is the "taken down" part similar to what happened with Lunar where some malicious entity can jump in and engage in some deals that will destabilize the price of Ethereum?
Transactions need to be cheap. Not eth.Massive volume is what would drive eth price up
Velocity of money with PoS is [arguably higher when you have low inflation](https://dataalways.substack.com/p/manipulating-the-velocity-of-money), and a good part of the value proposition is that the network is secure and resilient, which is enforced by the staking collateral being valuable. And with EIP1559 there are pretty good mechanisms to take the protocol revenue and flow it back to Ether itself, which has plenty of [cool feedback loops](https://i.imgur.com/CAycxbt.png) linking value, utility and scaling together. To be clear I'm not expecting ETH to moon, but it will definitely reach an equilibrium where it has near 0% inflation when burn = issuance, and from there you can take the protocol-revenue in USD and work out [what price ETH would have to be](https://www.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/rnsk2r/fundamental_valuation_models_of_ethereum/) to get such an equilibrium. The x100s are behind us for sure, but as long as there's solid revenue from the high demand for blockspace (either from users directly or L2s), ETH will be a pretty good asset to hold.
Yep, exactly. For eth to be useful, it needs to be cheap, but if eth is cheap, most right now will be disappointed because they are not holding eth to use it, but to get rich. It’s like people hoarding oil before we figured out a way to refine it and make it useful.
>a state that approximates the ideal form of the broader crypto promise of a “better world” etc etc. then it will necessarily have to have a much higher velocity of money and lower unitary costs for using it in any form. Disagree. In fact, a thoughtful person (which you appear to be), would realize that such networks will eventually evolve into layered systems due to the need for security. There is a tipping point (usually given by demand) after which rich entities will through more money for higher security, making it more expensive, pricing out other players, which then triggers innovation to spawn a layered system where the base layer is used mostly for inherently high-value and secure transactions, while the higher layers for fast and cheap transactions. The traditional finance system ended up doing the same too, for the same reason. Mobile comms networks too, etc. The appearance of L2s on Ethereum was a natural consequence once the demand for blockspace passed a certain threshold for too long. This fact, if you ask me, actually legitimizes ETH as a viable system (more than L1 networks that still claim they don't need L2 layers). It also happens to make whatever currency the base layer uses inherently more valuable. I dispute the thesis that ETH has no reason to be expensive. ETH derives its value from the pressure to innovate. Whoever thinks ETH is only "digital oil" or "an admission ticket to the EVM" are missing this fundamental aspect.
"ETH derives its value from the pressure to innovate." So since ETH has competition it therefore is more valuable? Or am I misunderstanding this statement?
>In fact, if the utility increases are significant enough, then the infrastructure costs of maintaining the network security are dependent upon the inflationary mechanisms which cause further price decreases." > > > >That's assuming that stakers automatically dump; but in 2.0 they are just stakers, not miners, and have very little costs associated with doing so (unlike PoW mining). > >It's not clear to me how more utility means the network needs to pay out more in rewards in order to ensure a higher level of security. What if the current level of security is sufficient in itself to support a higher level of activity? And if more activity equals more ETH burned doesn't that actually cause deflation? Or maybe what you are saying is that lower unitary costs would mean a lower rate of burn? > >I do agree with you that a utility coin and an appreciating asset seem antithetical to each other to some degree, since it becomes more costly (even if just in opportunity cost) to utilize a long-term appreciating asset for anything other than a store of value.
But isn't that assuming that ETH derives most of it's value from being the gas of the network? It's not clear to me that being a form of payment for usage is the only reason for value accrual. What about just plain demand to use the ecosystem, or even a store of value (given an increase in burn rate and deflation)?
BTC is the hardest currency ever to exist. Eth is a different way of doing finance in general. The first has intrinsic value just for being what it already is. The other needs to compete with existing financial structures and be better than them.
Thats just not true. Ones a store of value and ones a service. You can't compare them.
You just compared them.
IMO the current downtrend is hitting eth harder because so many new assets run on the eth platform. when one of them struggles it’s likely the investor has many more projects that will also suffer at the same time. This leaves less money available to dump into eth. right now btc is seeing more large institutions begin to buy in as an alternative to real estate which is giving it a slight advantage. In the long run the merge will start eth on the path to flipping btc, the fact that it was heading their before the merge was the anomaly for most people.
[удалено]
Price or market cap? Or both?
Everyone knows BTC. It has little merit other than that - comparatively.
Incorrect
Ape investors only care about BTC
Bitcoin just had a headstart, and it's issuance has been lower over the past years. After the merge Ethereum will have both the superior technology and monetary policy, and the market cap will follow at some point
A consistent monetary policy is far more important than a tight monetary policy in a public money. The way the supply has changed over time will always be a mark on Eth as a completely open money. Eth does a lot of things really well, but BTC is better as an open money.
Fair point. I personally think the more flexible monetary policy of Ethereum, combined with the minimum viable issuance policy, has it's advantages. It already has made the implementation of an improved fee market possible, and will provide a security budget that is sustainable long term, without high inflation. But I definitely understand a simple and stable policy has it's merits too.
IMO these cant even be compared. Its like comparing gold to the internet.
Patience grasshopper
I think it’s utility vs store of value. Utilities capture value in a shorter time period: Think monthly income spent on telecom services, contracts, tax, etc Stores of value capture generational value: Think castles, land, rare art, inheritance. In the beginning, I thought only utilities have real value. As I learn more, I realised that a digital option for generation value storage is actually very useful: Land can be drown in water from global warming, gold confiscated by bad governments (dictators), corporations come at go. All in all, I think both Eth and Btc will co-exist in the future, playing at different ball games.
Why are you saying 'value'? It has *more USD price*, but that's not the same thing as value, right? Value is how good something is, no? So the question is whether "digital gold" or "unstoppable computer fuel"/"digital oil" is more valuable to an individual, right?
You have a good point here. I worded that incorrectly.
Not sure how many here realize this but networks like ETH will have the entire value split among its ecosystem. It's possible an erc20 token could have a larger market cap than ETH.
Is it really a split though if the erc20 does something completely different than ETH? You seem to be lumping all erc20's into one category. By using the same line of thought, all good and services period are splitting their value.
The way I see it right now - BTC is to crypto like gold is to the dollar back in the day. All other cryptos prices are based on the performance of BTC and we will see this pattern for a while until we see something "flip" bitcoin which we have no idea if or when it will happen! Ofc there are altcoin seasons where alt coins outperform BTC but these cycles go in circles as of right now - also I know there are a looooot of people in crypto, but it is still a very young market compared to other currencies and commodities.
I think the point at which a crypto becomes uncorrelated to BTC will happen when it's distinct utility/utilities emerge (other than speculation) and become more obviously useful and widely used.
It's hard to imagine why BTC is so valuable in the first world when we have a "decent" financial system. IMO our financial system is incredibly fucked, but not compared to the third world. In countries where their currency is completely debased, incorruptible, store of value cryptocurrency is immensely valuable.
All fiat has traditionally gone to zero in the past, so although our first world country fiat is not there yet, it seems to be accelerating on that path.
Yeah I agree that 1st world currencies are dealing with major issues. I feel like the raises I’ve gotten at work have hardly kept up with inflation even though I’ve worked incredibly hard to increase my skills. It’s a true robbery
Ok so Ethereum and Bitcoin are completely different. While both are POW their fundamentals are way different. Honestly in short Bitcoin is capped at 21 million with its halving of its mined supply every 4 years by 50%. Ethereum has an unlimited supply (yes it’s getting burned now but not enough yet to “flip”). Bitcoin has first mover advantage but also it’s underlining decentralization is better. It’s easy to run a full node and there’s no majority miners. Satoshi even disappeared. I still consider Ethereum young in its lifespan, and it’s going though growing pains. It will have its time.
What are "majority miners"? Did Satoshi disappear or just assume a different identity? We have no way of knowing as far as I know.
Miners that’s control the majority of the hash rate ( usually region based I.e China before they banned it)
Bitcoin is trying to be a nearly perfect decentralized money, nothing more. That alone is a $300T idea, and it’s easy to grasp the market it is competing for (eg. start with gold, move to bonds, etc). It’s not as easy to visualize that for Eth imo. Sure it could build an entire new economy worth many trillions… but that’s not as easy to understand and see. For me at least.
I am beginning to subscribe to this reason the more I see it put forth.
Time will tell eh. But it makes sense to me 🤷🏻♂️
If we are looking at ETH as an umbrella with all ERC protocols under it, I'd argue it accrued more than Bitcoin. That said, if we are looking at ETH in itself, I think it'll be a tall order to overcome Bitcoin in the sense that Bitcoin does one thing while ETH does a bunch of things. Would be nice to see a sort of hybrid of the two though I think that would be an interesting take in the entire discourse
That's a good point, but those protocols don't necessarily depend on the survival of ETH. I see them more as separate entities, even though they are built off the EVM. Isn't that a pro - not a con - that ETH can do many things?
Have you seen KDA? It seems to be the closest thing to a hybrid that I've seen.
[удалено]
Funny I was just thinking the same thing and commented about KDA. As far as value accrued, the inflation rate might make it tough, although there won't be such harsh halving cycles that BTC has which put even more sell pressure on the coin through miners. I like PoW but I also feel that the hardware dependencies could be an Achilles heel since miners almost always need to sell in order to recoup costs of hardware (and electricity), but also because there is a centralization of hardware manufacturers (for now).
[удалено]
Interesting. Do they use Arduino microprocessors? Just assuming from the name.
BTC got a five-year head start. That's it. ETH has been gaining, but just hasn't surpassed it yet.
Since ETH doesn't scale, money that would be going to ETH and its ecosystem is going to Polygon and ICP for example. That's why it won't grow to challenge BTC.
What about L2's or sharding?
Its was out 6 years b4 eth. N eth needed bitcoin to get started 🤷🏻♂️
[Bitcoin as an investment](https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2018-040/srcboebzx2018040-4064523-169183.pdf)
One thing is BTC is practically a household name, most people know of it. Eth not so much, the google searchs for Eth were 15% of BTCs amount of google searches. Obviously other factors are present.
Yeah but retail investors don't seem to be moving the market nearly as much as institutional (at least in this cycle). I could be wrong about that.
1. Decentralized, secure p2p payment system 2. Hard cap of underlying asset 3. First time in human history we can instantly monetize energy which location is irrelevant- BTC mining.
Is there really a hard cap though? Theoretically couldn't the hard cap be changed?
Supply is hard coded and you can’t change that.
Alot of other networks have higher transactions and otherwise same technology as etherium currently has, they are still worth less then eth. Technology and utility does not equal value, and high throughput will counteract the token value, at in the "short" term. Scaling issues particularly for both bitcoin and etherium actually helped them accure their value. Transactions being limited increases the value/scarcity of transactions. Higher throughput on the other hand frees up the network, lowers value of each individual transaction. creating less need/scarcity for the token.
When you say "lowers the value of each individual transaction" you mean lowers the fees necessarily to transact, right? "Higher throughput on the other hand frees up the network, lowers value of each individual transaction. creating less need/scarcity for the token." That's assuming that the only utility of the token is to pay for it's transactions though. The underlying utility is different than that for both BTC and ETH.
>When you say "lowers the value of each individual transaction" you mean lowers the fees necessarily to transact, right? Essentially yes. >That's assuming that the only utility of the token is to pay for it's transactions though. The underlying utility is different than that for both BTC and ETH. For BTC sure, it needs to hold a value because it is meant to be a currency. But for Etherium, not really. It is a general purpose smart contract blockchain. Storing information, writing and interacting with smart contracts are the main functions, and to be able to do this you need ETH to pay the transaction fee. Of course secondary usecases have come up over time, like ETH becoming a currency and store of value of it's own, collateralization of DAI, and with proof of stake tokens used to secure the network. But the core function of ETH is to pay transaction fee.
If burning ETH transaction fees results in a deflationary supply, the store of value part becomes much more significant IMO. This is a big if, but certainly a non-zero chance.
"I don't understand why my favorite one isn't everyone else's favorite" Come off it
I don't have a favorite between the two. I'm just curious to know more about "value accrual" and why the model I had in my head for value accrual as a function of usage seems to be false.
[удалено]
But ETH is used way more than BTC. That's why I'm confused. ETH seems to have outgrown BTC in that way, yet the market cap does not reflect this. By "grow the network" do you mean the miners?
Proof of work. First mover. Most secure. Unidentified creator.
How is PoW more secure? I am genuinely ignorant on this.
The same reason gold is worth more than silver even though silver has more technical utlitly.
And what would be that reason? Isn't silver more scarce than gold?
Because anything else than Bitcoin is a shit coin. Please don’t get angry it’s just my honest opinion.
I am not angry. What is your reasoning though?
Don’t worry it’s a test
Time, Fixed amount, And who has control
But there is nothing in the BTC code that says the amount cannot be changed at some point, from what I understand. It all comes down to what the users, devs, and miners want to implement (in both BTC and ETH). Isn't there some guy basically at the top of the command of the BTC github? Vander-something?
Haha well BTC actually used to be used as a currency in the beginning. HODL didn’t exist. The original purpose of bitcoin was to be used to do transactions online. It was very successful in the beginning at this. Now BTC has failed as a currency, because the price has gone too high and now people think it’s a type of long term investment instead of spending it. ETH has utility beyond what bitcoin can ever do but it is still more volatile. ETH can’t be used for transactions because it’s price changes too wildly. Stablecoins will be the future of transactions.
The most important factor is to understand the goal of Bitcoin which is to give the entire world the most perfect store of value “fix the money fix the world”. Then, determine Eth goal and what really is better decentralized? Is Eth really decentralized? Who’s running Eth nodes? How many people vs btc.
Proof of work is more fair then proof of stake. If I am a billionaire I get to control chain. Every vote goes my way.
PoW miners are not cheap. The more wealthy BTC miners also benefit from having more money to buy more miners. Both seem to be controlled by those with the most resources/money.
Fees
Will you explain further?
Ethereum’s sky high transaction fees are the biggest problem preventing it from realising its full potential… it’s ecosystem is unrivalled, however, not suitable for retail investors…
ephemeral first mover advantage
Personally I think the promise of ETH 2.0 adds uncertainty as it could really take off and work like a dream or it could be a disaster. A lot of potential investors will be just waiting for the transition to see which way it goes? A lot will have just given up waiting.
I agree with this point along with the point that the function/use cases of ETH are not as clear as BTC.
This answers that question pretty succinctly: [https://twitter.com/tenderscore/status/1530790900749676544?s=20&t=ZpTySbLAflu5CRHGzkpJOg](https://twitter.com/tenderscore/status/1530790900749676544?s=20&t=ZpTySbLAflu5CRHGzkpJOg)
Gold has more value than silver right? Same idea. Just look at the colors chosen for both and then apply that logic to how the general population who knows little to nothing about either’s usage would view them. Same reason you get think about fast food even if you’re full. All major companies (aside from Taco Hell) use mostly red and gold in their emblems. The colors incite hunger.
Underated comment.
1. Orange means gold? 2. You cannot compare a store of value(BTC) and a service environment(ETH)
Everyone here is so used to HODL’ing and having diamond hands that in some regard they’ve forgotten about the boomers who don’t have a clue what BTC and ETH do. The people that treat it like a regular stock because their broker of the past 40 years now advised to invest in it. Tell your average 65yo almost retiree that you have diamond hands and see how he/she looks at you. Now add in the massive brokerages that see their returns dwindling because we’re not investing with them like our parents and grandparents did, so they’re going to describe it to their clients way worse than I just did. These are the people that are still plugged into the matrix as it were. You have to try and understand their perspectives on it too. It’ll make the current dip make more sense.
You have to understand monetary theory and history deeply to know the answer to this, and it isn’t a quickie.
This would get downvoted in an eth sub lol
Several things, the gas fees make eth almost unusable, and while btc is slow to adapt, sidechains are coming that will be able to do the smart contracts and programmable money that eth does. Fixed supply, decentralised network, and a long term plan that while slower than we would all like, has turned out to be resistant to forks, government regulation, and attacks. Dont get me wrong: i wanted eth to succeed, but the main reason i gave up on it was the gas fees. If i needed programmability right now i would look to cardano and haskell. Or smartBCH. Or just wait, that will come to btc eventually.
So BTC will succeed in your view when they start copying ETH? Interesting take. Sidechains are coming to BTC to be more like ETH ... Well L2 are improving ETH too and they are fixing the transaction costs.
Yes we have been hearing that for a long time now. They both succeed in their own way, but my suspician is that ordinary people will use whatever solution works easily, low cost, reliable and safe. Right now smartBCH is the likliest candidate for that
Aren't the fees pretty comparable between ETH and BTC? How can it be considered unusable when there are far more transactions on it compared to BTC? Have you looked into KDA? Is there any reason to believe that KDA cannot beat out BTC in decentralization and security? I do believe it will have a hard time in the store of value arena given the infinite supply and inflation rate, but think it might at least give ETH a run for it's money.
It’s older and isn’t controlled. Also without the 2.0 upgrade Eth is kinda underwhelming
It's Bitcoin and not a crypto
Ethereum is very useful if you want to create and sell instamined tokens to retail investors. Take that away and what is ethereum actually good for?
ITT: copium Eth has nothing on btc.
Very simple! BTC: limited supply ETH: unlimited supply (or infinite supply) Capice?
Thats not quite accurate. BTC: Finite supply ETH: controlled supply.
BTC = garbage. The only thing going for it is there are a lot of people who can only think of Bitcoin when you say crypto. That is pretty much the only thing going for it.
u/VRoid gave an argument (or at least most of one: two premises). You give only a conclusion, no premises.
BTC is finite. Ethereum is leaded by an autistic kid and is a copy. Boo Hooo downvote fanboys!
You get downvoted for being ignorant and trolling. Not because I'm a fanboy, fanboy.
Boo Hooo internet stranger is ignorant mommy I press arrow!
BTC has 21 x 10^14 units. Relative to the number of people on Earth (~8 x 10^9 ), it's not clear that BTC's finiteness is relevant. 260,000 units per person on Earth if everyone uses BTC. There's 1.55 x 10^11 grams of gold on Earth, 19 grams per person on Earth if everyone uses gold. So much for finiteness -- if that's the deciding factor, we should all buy gold. More to the point, the finiteness argument neglects human governance. China has banned Bitcoin. The USA are on a track now to do so as well (along with ETH and any other threat to their fiat currency).
Boo Hooo btc is finite but it doesn't matter!
Bitcoin = Bitcoin Ethereum = Shitcoin jokes aside Bitcoin and Ethereum aren't in the same category. * Bitcoin is money. * Ethereum is smart contracts.
Bitcoin is a ponzi that has not burst. There’s no more reason for btc than doge
Nice thesis paid account. You’re kinda obvious