Originally published by Decrypt on November 10, 2026, at 01:14:10 UTC+8.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin argued that ETH’s value should rest on the network’s security, decentralization and resistance to censorship—not primarily on the transaction fees it burns.
In a November 8, 2026, post cited by Decrypt, Buterin said the case for ETH as a fee-burning token was “never” as strong as it appeared. His comments challenged a central part of the “ultrasound money” narrative that gained traction after Ethereum began burning a portion of transaction fees in 2021.
“We should not feel sad if fee burn is < 10% of breakeven indefinitely; the value of ETH comes from elsewhere,” he wrote.
Why Buterin questions the fee-burning thesis
The fee-burning argument linked greater Ethereum usage to a smaller circulating supply and, in turn, a higher token price. Supporters also argued that transaction fees could give ETH a valuation floor, somewhat like revenue and profits supporting a company’s stock.
Ethereum burned millions of ETH annually from 2021 through 2023, according to the report. But Buterin said that activity was “never a true floor,” arguing that much of the burn came from crypto-native uses such as lending and speculative NFT purchases.
Connor Howe, co-founder and CEO of infrastructure provider Enso, told Decrypt that Ethereum’s expansion through layer-2 networks had further weakened the thesis. A significant share of activity had moved to those networks, he said, where users pay “almost nothing” to settle transactions.
Howe also noted a tension in the model: maximizing fee burning would mean seeking higher gas prices, something users do not want.
Buterin argued that optimizing fee revenue to justify ETH’s roughly $270 billion market capitalization at the time would make Ethereum function like a “world-scale major corporation.” In his view, that approach would undermine decentralization, one of the network’s principal selling points.
Supporters point to security and distribution
Binji Pande, a founding member of Ethlabs, agreed with Buterin’s emphasis on ETH as a store of value. Speaking to Decrypt, he described Ethereum as censorship-resistant, widely available and well distributed, with a role in tokenization, stablecoins and decentralized finance.
Pande also argued that ETH was a more “future-proof store of value” than Bitcoin. That is his assessment, rather than an established conclusion about either asset’s future performance.
His comparison extended to gold, which he said faces portability and physical-storage limits in an increasingly globalized world. For Bitcoin, he raised concerns about preparedness for potential AI and quantum-computing threats.
The report noted that the Ethereum Foundation formed a dedicated post-quantum team in January 2026 and that researchers had more recently debated potential AI-powered threats. It characterized the Bitcoin community as more divided over how to address quantum risk.
Julian Ma, co-founder of Ethlabs, told Decrypt that Ethereum’s investment in security and formal verification strengthened its case as a programmable store-of-value asset. His comments expressed confidence in those preparations, not proof that future threats had been resolved.
Pande also cited ETH’s distribution history. He said the Ethereum Foundation owned less than 0.2% of ETH and that the token had traded for 11 years. In his view, newer assets would struggle to establish similarly credible distribution without becoming centralized.
Agreement, with criticism over timing
Howe supported Buterin’s position but criticized how long it had taken to articulate it. He also said the Ethereum Foundation needed to listen more closely to applications building on the network.
“I think he is right,” Howe told Decrypt, “and I think it took too long to say it.”
The debate reframes the argument for ETH’s value around the network’s properties rather than fee destruction. It does not establish that ETH will maintain its price or outperform competing assets; those remain claims and expectations, not demonstrated outcomes.