Source published November 10, 2026, at 01:14:10 UTC+8. This article reflects that reporting period, not a live market assessment.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin argued that ETH’s store-of-value case should rest on the network’s decentralization, censorship resistance and security rather than the amount of ETH destroyed through transaction fees.
In a November 8, 2026, post cited by Decrypt, Buterin said the fee-burning thesis “never was as strong as it seemed.” His argument challenges the emphasis behind Ethereum’s “ultrasound money” narrative, which gained traction after the network began burning part of each transaction fee in 2021.
Why Buterin questions the burn-based valuation case
The fee-burning argument linked greater Ethereum usage to a smaller circulating ETH supply and, in turn, a higher price. Supporters also described transaction fees as a valuation floor, drawing comparisons with corporate revenue and profits.
According to Decrypt, Ethereum burned millions of ETH annually from 2021 through 2023. But Buterin said this was “never a true floor,” arguing that much of the activity came from uses within crypto, including lending and speculative NFT purchases.
“We should not feel sad if fee burn is < 10% of breakeven indefinitely; the value of ETH comes from elsewhere,” he wrote.
Connor Howe, co-founder and CEO of infrastructure provider Enso, told Decrypt that Ethereum’s layer-2 expansion had further weakened the burn thesis. A significant share of activity had moved to layer-2 networks, he said, where users pay “almost nothing” to settle transactions. Optimizing for greater fee destruction would also mean favoring higher gas prices—an outcome he said users do not want.
Buterin framed that approach as a conflict with Ethereum’s purpose. Optimizing fee revenue to justify what he described as ETH’s then-current roughly $270 billion market capitalization would make Ethereum function like a major global corporation, he argued, undermining its decentralization.
The alternative case: security, distribution and adaptability
Binji Pande, a founding member of Ethlabs, agreed with Buterin and told Decrypt that ETH was a more “future-proof store of value” than Bitcoin. He pointed to censorship resistance, broad availability, token distribution and Ethereum’s role in tokenization, stablecoins and decentralized finance.
Pande also argued that gold’s physical storage and portability constraints limited its usefulness in a globalized economy. His criticism of Bitcoin centered on whether it could adapt to potential AI and quantum-computing threats.
Decrypt reported that the Ethereum Foundation had established a dedicated post-quantum team in January 2026 and that researchers had more recently debated potential AI-powered threats. The report contrasted those preparations with what it described as a more fractured Bitcoin-community response to quantum risks.
Ethlabs co-founder Julian Ma told Decrypt that Ethereum’s investments in security and formal verification strengthened its case as a programmable store-of-value asset. Those are assessments by Ethereum advocates, rather than evidence that ETH will retain its purchasing power or outperform competing assets.
Pande also cited distribution history, saying the Ethereum Foundation owned less than 0.2% of ETH and that the token had traded for 11 years. He argued that newly launched assets would struggle to establish comparably credible distribution without becoming centralized.
What the shift means for the market narrative
The distinction is between two valuation arguments: one based on transaction activity and token destruction, and another based on the perceived durability and usefulness of the network. Buterin’s comments favor the latter; they do not establish a price floor or guarantee store-of-value performance.
Howe supported the change in emphasis but criticized its timing. He said the Ethereum Foundation needed to listen more closely to applications building on the network, adding of Buterin’s position: “I think he is right, and I think it took too long to say it.”