This seems to be a contrarian take, but I agree with
@TrustlessState: Ethereum ≠ETH.
Dencun is a good example. It deliberately reduced transaction costs and increased scalability, even though it compressed fee revenue.
> Ethereum usage exploded
> Blob adoption grew
> L2 activity accelerated
> The network became cheaper and more efficient
However, ETH holders captured less value from that activity. If network growth would translate directly into ETH value capture, debates around Ethereum's business model wouldn't exist, and ETH would've broken its ATH in 2026.
I don't believe that Ethereum is a failed experiment. Adoption charts show, very clearly, that it's quite the opposite. At the same time, I also believe that improvements on ETH's value accrual mechanisms are required for ETH (the asset) to thrive. Data has already shown that usage alone won't get the job done.
Better value accrual mechanisms = Better ETH.
> Saying you’re bullish Ethereum not ETH is like saying you’re bullish America not the American economy.
I don't think this is true. The analogy doesn't hold. These are two different mediums with different contexts.
There needs to be a mechanism that drives value to ETH. Ethereum has been architecturally designed to minimize rent-seeking and value capture.
Ethereum's architectural philosophy is antagonistic to explicit value capture.
I want ETH to be a global store of value, but I can't find anyone to explain how it actually gets from A to B, without instead talking about the noble properties of Ethereum and assuming that becomes priced in ETH