Historical report: Decrypt published the original article on November 10, 2026, at 01:14:10 (UTC+8).
Vitalik Buterin is arguing for a different way to assess Ethereum’s native asset: less emphasis on transaction fees burned, and more on ETH’s potential role as a store of value backed by decentralization, censorship resistance and security.
In a November 8, 2026, post cited by Decrypt, the Ethereum co-founder said the fee-burning thesis “never was as strong as it seemed.” His argument challenges a central part of the “ultrasound money” narrative that developed after Ethereum began burning a portion of transaction fees in 2021.
Why network activity and ETH burning can diverge
The original pitch linked greater Ethereum usage to more ETH being destroyed, a smaller circulating supply and, proponents argued, a higher token price. Some supporters viewed transaction fees as a valuation floor, drawing comparisons with a company’s revenue and profits.
According to Decrypt, Ethereum burned millions of ETH annually from 2021 through 2023. But Buterin said those burns were “never a true floor,” noting that much of the demand came from crypto-native activity such as lending and 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 fee-burning argument. A significant share of activity had moved to layer-2 networks, he said, where users pay “almost nothing” to settle transactions. Optimizing for more burning would also mean favoring higher gas prices—an outcome he said users do not want.
The adoption distinction is important: more ecosystem activity does not necessarily translate into more ETH burned. The report provides no quantified layer-2 activity share, user counts or retention data, so it does not establish how much adoption has grown or how durable that use is.
Buterin also argued that optimizing fee revenue to justify ETH’s then roughly $270 billion market capitalization would make Ethereum function like a “world-scale major corporation,” undermining its decentralization.
A store-of-value thesis, not proof of price stability
The stability Buterin described concerns Ethereum’s underlying properties: decentralization, censorship resistance and strong security. It should not be read as a promise that ETH’s market price will remain stable.
Binji Pande, a founding member of Ethlabs, told Decrypt he agreed with the shift. He cited Ethereum’s distribution, availability and position in tokenization, stablecoins and decentralized finance as reasons to regard ETH as a “future-proof store of value.” Those are his assessments, rather than demonstrated conclusions about future demand or returns.
Pande also argued that gold faces portability and physical-storage constraints, while Bitcoin faces unresolved questions around AI and quantum threats. Decrypt reported that the Ethereum Foundation formed a dedicated post-quantum team in January and that researchers had subsequently debated potential AI-powered threats. It described Bitcoin’s community as more divided over its quantum response.
Ethlabs co-founder Julian Ma argued that Ethereum’s security preparations and investment in formal verification strengthen its store-of-value case. Pande additionally pointed to the token’s 11-year trading history and said the Ethereum Foundation owned less than 0.2% of ETH, contrasting that distribution with the centralization risks he sees in new assets.
Howe supported Buterin’s change in emphasis but said it had taken too long. He also urged the Ethereum Foundation to listen more closely to applications building on the network.
The shift changes the proposed basis for ETH’s value. It does not, on its own, demonstrate greater adoption, lasting user demand or protection against market losses.
