Source publication time: November 10, 2026, at 01:14:10 UTC+8. This article reflects the reporting and views at that time.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin argued that ETH should be valued primarily as a store of value rather than a fee-burning token. His distinction puts two different cases for ETH side by side: scarcity driven by network fees, and durability supported by Ethereum’s decentralization, censorship resistance and security.
In its reporting, Decrypt also gathered comparisons with Bitcoin and gold. Those comparisons were arguments made by interviewees—not evidence that ETH would preserve its price or outperform either asset.
Fee burning: a supply mechanism, not a guaranteed price floor
Ethereum began burning a portion of transaction fees in 2021. The “ultrasound money” narrative linked greater network use to fewer coins in circulation and, in turn, a higher price.
Buterin challenged the strength of that link in a November 8, 2026 post:
“We should not feel sad if fee burn is < 10% of breakeven indefinitely; the value of ETH comes from elsewhere.”
According to Decrypt, Ethereum burned millions of ETH annually from 2021 through 2023. Buterin nevertheless said that burning was “never a true floor,” arguing that much of it came from activity internal to crypto, including lending and speculative NFT purchases.
Connor Howe, co-founder and CEO of infrastructure provider Enso, told Decrypt that Ethereum’s layer-2 expansion further weakened the fee-burning argument. A significant share of activity had moved to layer-2 networks, he said, where users paid “almost nothing” to settle transactions. Optimizing for burning would also mean optimizing for higher gas prices—an outcome he said users did not want.
Buterin argued that optimizing fee burning to justify ETH’s then-current roughly $270 billion market capitalization would make Ethereum function like a major global corporation, undermining its decentralization.
Store of value: the network properties behind the argument
Buterin instead emphasized stability rooted in decentralization, censorship resistance and security. That is a claim about the network’s foundations, distinct from a promise of stable token prices.
Binji Pande, a founding member of Ethlabs, agreed with that framing. He pointed to Ethereum’s censorship resistance, what he called its “great distribution,” ETH’s broad availability, and the network’s role in tokenization, stablecoins and decentralized finance.
Pande also said the Ethereum Foundation owned less than 0.2% of ETH and that the token had traded for 11 years. He argued that newer assets could not establish comparable confidence in fair distribution and were vulnerable to centralization.
ETH, Bitcoin and gold: the comparison criteria
Pande’s comparison rested on portability, distribution and adaptability to security threats—not on comparable return data.
For gold, he argued that physical storage limits and limited portability weakened its usefulness in a globalized world.
For Bitcoin, he questioned whether it was sufficiently “future-proof” against AI and quantum threats. Decrypt reported that the Ethereum Foundation had formed a dedicated post-quantum team in January 2026, while researchers had also debated potential AI-powered threats. The report described Bitcoin’s community as appearing more divided over its response to quantum risks.
Ethlabs co-founder Julian Ma argued that Ethereum’s security culture, preparation and investment in formal verification strengthened ETH’s case as a programmable store of value. These remain attributed assessments of preparedness, not proof of future security outcomes.
Howe supported Buterin’s reframing but criticized its timing, saying it had taken too long. He also urged the Ethereum Foundation to listen more closely to applications building on its network.
The central distinction is between a token-supply mechanism and a broader store-of-value thesis. Fee burning changes ETH’s supply dynamics; the alternative argument rests on Ethereum’s institutional and technical resilience. Neither establishes a guaranteed price floor.