wmougayar
0 Suivis
1 Abonnés
3 J’aime
0 Partagé(s)
Publications
Vidéos
Why Crypto Prices Should Decouple from Macro and Geopolitical Noise
Digital assets are built on fundamentally different premises than fiat-based markets
Bitcoin and Ethereum were designed as non-sovereign digital assets. Yet markets still treat them like tech stocks, swinging wildly with inflation prints or central bank guidance.
Digital assets are built on fundamentally different premises than fiat-based markets
Bitcoin and Ethereum were designed as non-sovereign digital assets. Yet markets still treat them like tech stocks, swinging wildly with inflation prints or central bank guidance.
https://ethdigitaloil.com - The Bull Case Paper
https://onethereum.org - Marketing Site
https://ethmrc.com - Research Center
https://ethereumdashboards.com/ - 100+ Dashboards
https://onethereum.org - Marketing Site
https://ethmrc.com - Research Center
https://ethereumdashboards.com/ - 100+ Dashboards
Revisiting the DCF argument for Blockchains
Although I have already made a clear case for why Ethereum Should Not be Valued Based on Fees or Discounted Cash Flow (https://t.co/yPtk8mxSl7), the DCF and Fee-Based Model is simply misapplied logic.
Applying traditional metrics to blockchains is shortsighted, but if a chain like Solana wants to apply it to themselves, that’s fine. But don’t apply it to Ethereum, because Ethereum is way beyond that.
DCF, validator revenue, or protocol fees miss the point. It is the equivalent of valuing Amazon in 1998 by its shipping costs. If you see Solana like a software-as-a-service (SaaS) company, estimating its future cash flows and discounting them back to present value, that’s fine. But don’t apply it to Ethereum because Ethereum is not that.
The DCF framework quickly collapses under scrutiny:
* Blockchains aren’t companies. They don’t have shareholders, retained earnings, or management seeking to maximize profits. But if Solana sees themselves otherwise, fine, do it for yourself, but not for Ethereum.
* Fee structures are dynamic and often political. Protocols can—and do—lower fees for strategic reasons (e.g., Layer 2 scaling).
* Subsidies distort reality. Solana heavily subsidizes validator revenues, which inflates perceived “earnings” without reflecting the real, organic usage. So, maybe one should discount the Solana DCF by the % amounts being artificially subsidized. That’s at least 25%, if not more.
Ultimately, DCF assumes a central issuer and a predictable revenue stream, neither of which are natural to decentralized public blockchains. But then, Solana is not a public blockchain. It is tilting more as being a private blockchain.
So, let’s not compare Solana to Ethereum on that basis. Let Solana be judged against database companies or Hyperliquid and let’s see how it fares.
Although I have already made a clear case for why Ethereum Should Not be Valued Based on Fees or Discounted Cash Flow (https://t.co/yPtk8mxSl7), the DCF and Fee-Based Model is simply misapplied logic.
Applying traditional metrics to blockchains is shortsighted, but if a chain like Solana wants to apply it to themselves, that’s fine. But don’t apply it to Ethereum, because Ethereum is way beyond that.
DCF, validator revenue, or protocol fees miss the point. It is the equivalent of valuing Amazon in 1998 by its shipping costs. If you see Solana like a software-as-a-service (SaaS) company, estimating its future cash flows and discounting them back to present value, that’s fine. But don’t apply it to Ethereum because Ethereum is not that.
The DCF framework quickly collapses under scrutiny:
* Blockchains aren’t companies. They don’t have shareholders, retained earnings, or management seeking to maximize profits. But if Solana sees themselves otherwise, fine, do it for yourself, but not for Ethereum.
* Fee structures are dynamic and often political. Protocols can—and do—lower fees for strategic reasons (e.g., Layer 2 scaling).
* Subsidies distort reality. Solana heavily subsidizes validator revenues, which inflates perceived “earnings” without reflecting the real, organic usage. So, maybe one should discount the Solana DCF by the % amounts being artificially subsidized. That’s at least 25%, if not more.
Ultimately, DCF assumes a central issuer and a predictable revenue stream, neither of which are natural to decentralized public blockchains. But then, Solana is not a public blockchain. It is tilting more as being a private blockchain.
So, let’s not compare Solana to Ethereum on that basis. Let Solana be judged against database companies or Hyperliquid and let’s see how it fares.
Ethereum is still the king of the hill in DeFi. And by adding 2 L2’s, Ethereum’s TVL is x8 times the closest competitor. I rest my case.
TVL: Top 10 Alternative Chains Diversifying DeFi, Ethereum Maintains Dominance https://blockchainreporter.net/tvl-top-10-alternative-chains-diversifying-defi-ethereum-maintains-dominance/
TVL: Top 10 Alternative Chains Diversifying DeFi, Ethereum Maintains Dominance https://blockchainreporter.net/tvl-top-10-alternative-chains-diversifying-defi-ethereum-maintains-dominance/
We should stop comparing 1 chain to another. The battleground is not Blockchain X vs Blockchain Y.
The future belongs to the chain protocol that gathers the largest and most active network around it.
Ethereum is a protocol approaching 200 L2 or EVM compatible chains around it. That is an order of magnitude more than the next one.
The Protocol is Ethereum’s EVM.
The Network is Ethereum’s L2’s.
The Settlement Platform is Ethereum.
The ticker is ETH.
The future belongs to the chain protocol that gathers the largest and most active network around it.
Ethereum is a protocol approaching 200 L2 or EVM compatible chains around it. That is an order of magnitude more than the next one.
The Protocol is Ethereum’s EVM.
The Network is Ethereum’s L2’s.
The Settlement Platform is Ethereum.
The ticker is ETH.
Ethereum Advocate William Mougayar to Lead Ecosystem's New Profile-Raising Initiative
The Ethereum Market Research Centre (EMRC) is a community-led initiative aimed at bridging the education gap for institutional and professional audiences.
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2025/06/10/ethereum-market-research-centre-introduced-by-eth-o-g-william-mougayar
The Ethereum Market Research Centre (EMRC) is a community-led initiative aimed at bridging the education gap for institutional and professional audiences.
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2025/06/10/ethereum-market-research-centre-introduced-by-eth-o-g-william-mougayar
I hear crypto FOMO might be back in fashion.
Just saying. DYOR.
Just saying. DYOR.
Memo to Corporate Treasuries
cc: Michael Saylor
If your company is holding Bitcoin in its treasury, it’s time to start thinking about what comes next, and that next step is Ethereum DeFi.
Holding BTC might be a long-term strategy, but capital just sitting there is capital underutilized. Wrapped Bitcoin (like WBTC) offers a seamless gateway into Ethereum’s DeFi ecosystem, where yield, composability, and capital efficiency are already battle-tested and readily available. Want to put your BTC to work? Ethereum is the answer.
Don’t count on traditional finance to bridge this gap for you. TradFi is not going to hand BTC yield opportunities over on a silver platter. Integrating crypto into conventional yield products will be slow, bureaucratic, and subject to aggressive terms, if it happens at all. Meanwhile, Ethereum DeFi is live, global, and on-chain. Today.
Converting BTC into Ethereum-compatible assets offers a much smoother and faster route to generate yield than waiting for banks to figure it out. Why jump through legacy financial hoops when your treasury can earn yield immediately by tapping into DeFi protocols like Aave, Ethena, https://t.co/WrzXFP0mXw, Maker, or Lido?
If you’re serious about maximizing the value of your crypto treasury, don’t just hodl —> deploy. Ethereum DeFi is the path from passive storage to active financial strategy.
cc: @saylor
cc: Michael Saylor
If your company is holding Bitcoin in its treasury, it’s time to start thinking about what comes next, and that next step is Ethereum DeFi.
Holding BTC might be a long-term strategy, but capital just sitting there is capital underutilized. Wrapped Bitcoin (like WBTC) offers a seamless gateway into Ethereum’s DeFi ecosystem, where yield, composability, and capital efficiency are already battle-tested and readily available. Want to put your BTC to work? Ethereum is the answer.
Don’t count on traditional finance to bridge this gap for you. TradFi is not going to hand BTC yield opportunities over on a silver platter. Integrating crypto into conventional yield products will be slow, bureaucratic, and subject to aggressive terms, if it happens at all. Meanwhile, Ethereum DeFi is live, global, and on-chain. Today.
Converting BTC into Ethereum-compatible assets offers a much smoother and faster route to generate yield than waiting for banks to figure it out. Why jump through legacy financial hoops when your treasury can earn yield immediately by tapping into DeFi protocols like Aave, Ethena, https://t.co/WrzXFP0mXw, Maker, or Lido?
If you’re serious about maximizing the value of your crypto treasury, don’t just hodl —> deploy. Ethereum DeFi is the path from passive storage to active financial strategy.
cc: @saylor
The ups and downs of the tariffs drama in the US are reminiscent of the Gary Gensler’s crypto era situation: irrational, capricious, unpredictable, damaging, threatening, never ending.
When does it end? How does it end?
When does it end? How does it end?
No one who joined Ethereum was bought or paid to do so. Everyone is involved based on their own work, journey, convictions or choices.
Be wary of other chains who have to pay big bucks (and give tokens) for people to join them, (or write a book about them), on top of bribing validators to validate transactions, half of which would be out of business without subsidies.
Be wary of other chains who have to pay big bucks (and give tokens) for people to join them, (or write a book about them), on top of bribing validators to validate transactions, half of which would be out of business without subsidies.
If your primary goal is maximizing bandwidth and minimizing latency, you’re likely building a networked database, not a blockchain.
That’s because bandwidth and latency aren’t core blockchain foundational facets. While speed and scalability do matter, they are secondary to deeper mechanism related principles that define blockchains and their applications focus.
Trying to use blockchains to replace databases means you’ll end up bloating throughput and manufacturing a bandwidth/latency problem that didn’t need to exist, chasing performance instead of prioritizing credibly neutral decentralization. And you will face brutal competition from the world’s best companies in this space: Oracle, Amazon, Red Hat and Microsoft, to name a few.
Distributed databases have long delivered faster, cheaper transaction with the help of central coordination. That’s not what blockchains are for.
That’s because bandwidth and latency aren’t core blockchain foundational facets. While speed and scalability do matter, they are secondary to deeper mechanism related principles that define blockchains and their applications focus.
Trying to use blockchains to replace databases means you’ll end up bloating throughput and manufacturing a bandwidth/latency problem that didn’t need to exist, chasing performance instead of prioritizing credibly neutral decentralization. And you will face brutal competition from the world’s best companies in this space: Oracle, Amazon, Red Hat and Microsoft, to name a few.
Distributed databases have long delivered faster, cheaper transaction with the help of central coordination. That’s not what blockchains are for.
It’s time to flip the outdated notion of crypto as a “risk-on” asset in light of the growing global geopolitical and economic instability.
This outdated mindset ignores the structural evolution of crypto. In truth, the best digital assets are really “risk-off” alternatives: decentralized, censorship-resistant, globally accessible stores and rails of value that don’t rely on trust in any single nation-state or monetary authority.
During Covid, crypto attracted significant capital as both a safe haven and a source of opportunity, based on its exciting technological promises.
No one wishes for more global unrest, but given today’s uncertain landscape, a larger crypto market cap isn’t just good for prices, it’s essential for relevance. The more capitalized crypto becomes, the more it matters on the global stage as a credible, neutral, and durable financial system.
We should embrace the new narrative and make it a reality.
This outdated mindset ignores the structural evolution of crypto. In truth, the best digital assets are really “risk-off” alternatives: decentralized, censorship-resistant, globally accessible stores and rails of value that don’t rely on trust in any single nation-state or monetary authority.
During Covid, crypto attracted significant capital as both a safe haven and a source of opportunity, based on its exciting technological promises.
No one wishes for more global unrest, but given today’s uncertain landscape, a larger crypto market cap isn’t just good for prices, it’s essential for relevance. The more capitalized crypto becomes, the more it matters on the global stage as a credible, neutral, and durable financial system.
We should embrace the new narrative and make it a reality.
I keep seeing entrepreneurs obsessed with storing data on the blockchain. E.g. storing an attestation on the blockchain is not so innovative. It’s what comes next and what you do with the data.
If we are still doing what we can do with databases, we are not doing new things on the blockchain.
If we are still doing what we can do with databases, we are not doing new things on the blockchain.
There is nothing Real about Real Economic Value (REV)
Ethereum is not focused on MEV (Maximum Extractable Value), which represents an outdated and narrow way to assess blockchain activity. As a result, its REV (Real Economic Value, a derivative of MEV) is not maximized, by intent.
Instead, Ethereum has prioritized scalability, fee fairness (via the burn mechanism), and low inflation. This leads to a more predictable monetary policy, comparable to central bank models like the Federal Reserve, bringing it closer to Bitcoin’s fixed-supply philosophy. While Bitcoin’s supply continues to grow at approximately 1.5% annually, Ethereum’s is around 0.6% and is sometimes deflationary. These characteristics give ETH strong scarcity traits; an often overlooked aspect, making it a global monetary asset.
Evaluating Ethereum solely through the lens of REV is overly reductive. Ethereum is both a platform and a currency, and each component must be assessed on its own merits.
As a platform, Ethereum should be evaluated based on adoption metrics such as developer activity, app ecosystem growth (app capital), total value locked (TVL), tokenized real-world assets, stablecoin usage, NFT trading volumes, and both consumer and institutional participation.
As a monetary asset with commodity-like qualities, ETH should be assessed through its monetary characteristics: inflation rate, circulating supply, issuance model, security budget, transfer volumes, burn rate, and its role as collateral in decentralized finance.
Ethereum is not focused on MEV (Maximum Extractable Value), which represents an outdated and narrow way to assess blockchain activity. As a result, its REV (Real Economic Value, a derivative of MEV) is not maximized, by intent.
Instead, Ethereum has prioritized scalability, fee fairness (via the burn mechanism), and low inflation. This leads to a more predictable monetary policy, comparable to central bank models like the Federal Reserve, bringing it closer to Bitcoin’s fixed-supply philosophy. While Bitcoin’s supply continues to grow at approximately 1.5% annually, Ethereum’s is around 0.6% and is sometimes deflationary. These characteristics give ETH strong scarcity traits; an often overlooked aspect, making it a global monetary asset.
Evaluating Ethereum solely through the lens of REV is overly reductive. Ethereum is both a platform and a currency, and each component must be assessed on its own merits.
As a platform, Ethereum should be evaluated based on adoption metrics such as developer activity, app ecosystem growth (app capital), total value locked (TVL), tokenized real-world assets, stablecoin usage, NFT trading volumes, and both consumer and institutional participation.
As a monetary asset with commodity-like qualities, ETH should be assessed through its monetary characteristics: inflation rate, circulating supply, issuance model, security budget, transfer volumes, burn rate, and its role as collateral in decentralized finance.
Proof of a #Consensus2025 attendance. Vintage 2014 Ethereum t-shirt issued in same convention center 11 yrs ago at first Toronto blockchain conference where Ethereum was launched. @CoinDesk @VitalikButerin @ethereumJoseph
Connectez-vous pour découvrir d’autres contenus