Source publication time: November 10, 2026, at 01:14:10 UTC+8. This article reflects the reporting and claims made at that time.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin is challenging a central premise of ETH’s “ultrasound money” narrative: that burning transaction fees provides a durable foundation for the token’s valuation. His alternative is to emphasize Ethereum’s decentralization, censorship resistance and security as the basis for a store-of-value case.
The distinction matters. A mechanism that reduces token supply and an argument that an asset will preserve value are different propositions. Moving from one to the other changes the valuation story; it does not, by itself, establish that ETH will hold its price.
Why the fee-burning argument weakened
Ethereum began burning a portion of transaction fees in 2021. The “ultrasound money” pitch linked greater network use to fewer circulating coins—and, in turn, a higher token price. Supporters also described fees as a potential price floor, drawing comparisons with corporate revenue and profits.
In a November 8, 2026, post, Buterin argued that “ETH as fee-burning token never was as strong as it seemed.” He also wrote: “We should not feel sad if fee burn is < 10% of breakeven indefinitely; the value of ETH comes from elsewhere.”
Decrypt reported that Ethereum burned millions of ETH annually from 2021 through 2023. Buterin nevertheless said that activity was “never a true floor,” arguing that much of the burning came from crypto-internal uses such as lending and NFT purchases.
Connor Howe, co-founder and CEO of infrastructure provider Enso, told Decrypt that Ethereum’s layer-2 expansion further weakened the argument. A significant share of activity had moved to layer-2 networks, he said, where users paid “almost nothing” to settle transactions. Maximizing fee burns would also create an incentive to raise gas prices—an outcome users would not welcome.
Buterin framed that tension in valuation terms: optimizing fee revenue to justify a roughly $270 billion market capitalization would make Ethereum function like a major corporation operating at global scale. In his view, that would undermine decentralization, one of the network’s principal selling points.
The replacement thesis—and its evidence gap
Binji Pande, a founding member of Ethlabs, endorsed the store-of-value framing, telling Decrypt that ETH was more “future-proof” than Bitcoin. He pointed to censorship resistance, broad availability, 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 world. His concerns about Bitcoin centered on preparedness for AI and quantum-computing threats.
Those comparisons remain attributed judgments, not demonstrated guarantees of ETH’s future purchasing power.
There were concrete security initiatives behind part of the discussion. According to Decrypt, the Ethereum Foundation formed a dedicated post-quantum team in January 2026, and researchers had more recently debated AI-powered threats. The report described Bitcoin’s community as more divided over its response to quantum risks.
Ethlabs co-founder Julian Ma argued that Ethereum’s investments in security and formal verification would strengthen its position as a programmable store-of-value asset. That was a forward-looking assessment, rather than evidence that those risks had been eliminated.
Pande also cited distribution: he 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 would struggle to achieve comparably credible distribution and avoid centralization.
Agreement on direction, criticism on timing
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 central tension is between inexpensive network use and a valuation narrative that benefits from higher fees. Buterin’s proposed shift moves the argument toward resilience and monetary credibility. Those qualities require their own evidence; they are not interchangeable with fee revenue or proof of future returns.