Originally published by Decrypt on November 10, 2026, at 01:14:10 UTC+8. This article reflects that reporting context.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin argued that ETH’s value should be understood primarily through its properties as a store of value, rather than through transaction-fee burning. His case shifts the emphasis from token scarcity generated by network usage to Ethereum’s decentralization, censorship resistance and security.
The distinction matters for valuation: a mechanism that removes tokens from circulation is not necessarily a reliable price floor, and maximizing that mechanism may conflict with making Ethereum inexpensive to use.
Why Buterin questions the fee-burning thesis
Ethereum began burning a portion of every transaction fee in 2021. The resulting “ultrasound money” narrative linked greater network usage to a smaller circulating supply—and, in turn, to a higher ETH price.
In a November 8, 2026 post, Buterin challenged the importance of that relationship:
“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 to 2023. Buterin nevertheless argued that the burn was “never a true floor” for ETH’s price. He said much of it came from activity internal to crypto, including lending and speculative NFT purchases.
That challenges the analogy between fee burning and the revenues or profits underpinning a company’s shares. Buterin’s argument is not that burning does nothing to supply, but that the mechanism was never as strong a valuation foundation as its advocates suggested.
Layer-2 growth exposes a design tension
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.
Howe also identified a conflict in optimizing ETH around burns: doing so would encourage higher gas prices, which users do not want.
Buterin framed the trade-off in terms of Ethereum’s institutional character:
“If we decide we actually want to optimize ETH for burning fees to justify a present-day ~$270B market cap, then Ethereum would essentially be functioning as a world-scale major corporation.”
In his assessment, pursuing that objective would compromise decentralization, one of Ethereum’s central selling points. The approximately $270 billion figure was part of his argument at the time, not an independently established valuation benchmark.
What the store-of-value case rests on
A store of value is an asset intended to preserve worth over time. Buterin’s proposed emphasis rests on Ethereum’s resilience as a network—not on a promise that ETH’s market price will remain stable.
Binji Pande, a founding member of Ethlabs, supported the shift in comments to Decrypt. He described ETH as a more “future-proof store of value” than Bitcoin, citing censorship resistance, broad availability, token distribution and Ethereum’s role in tokenization, stablecoins and decentralized finance.
Pande contrasted ETH with gold’s physical constraints, arguing that a globalized economy requires greater portability and that storing gold encounters physical limits. He also questioned Bitcoin’s preparedness for AI-related and quantum threats.
Those comparisons are Pande’s assessments, not demonstrated conclusions about which asset will best preserve purchasing power.
Security preparedness is part of the argument
Decrypt reported that the Ethereum Foundation formed a dedicated post-quantum team in January 2026 and that researchers had subsequently debated potential AI-powered threats. The report described the Bitcoin community as more divided over how to address quantum risk.
Julian Ma, an Ethlabs co-founder, argued that Ethereum’s security culture and investments in security and formal verification strengthened its case as a programmable store of value. He said preparations for AI-enabled cyberattacks and potential threats to cryptography were positioned to pay off.
These are arguments about preparedness. The reported organizational steps and research discussions do not, by themselves, establish immunity to future attacks or prove a comparative security advantage.
Distribution is another claimed advantage
Pande also argued that newer assets cannot readily establish the same distribution credibility. He said the Ethereum Foundation owned less than 0.2% of ETH and that the token had traded for 11 years. In his view, distributing or mining a new store-of-value asset in 2026 would expose it to centralization.
The ownership figure and distribution assessment were attributed to Pande; the supplied report did not provide a supporting dataset or measurement date for the figure.
A change in emphasis, not a completed valuation model
The central research distinction is between a supply mechanism and a broader monetary thesis. Fee burning offers a usage-linked reduction in token supply. The store-of-value argument instead asks whether decentralization, censorship resistance, distribution and adaptability can sustain demand for ETH over time.
The reporting supports a shift in emphasis among Buterin and the commentators quoted. It does not establish a quantitative model for converting those properties into an ETH valuation, nor demonstrate that ETH will outperform Bitcoin or gold.
Howe agreed with Buterin’s position but criticized the timing, saying it had taken too long to articulate. He also said the Ethereum Foundation needed to listen more closely to applications building on the network.
Original source: Decrypt — “Vitalik Buterin Moves On From ‘Ultrasound Money,’ Says ETH’s Value Is Stability”.