On November 19, an online publication featured a recent public speech by Dan Bin.

In this speech, Dan Bin specifically mentioned gold, Bitcoin, and Tesla.

Regarding gold, Dan Bin mentioned (in essence):

From a long historical perspective, gold, as a non-yielding asset, cannot outperform yielding assets (such as stocks), and he compared the return curves of these two through a time-return graph.

Upon hearing this statement, I recalled a passage from Warren Buffett's shareholder Q&A (in essence):

He used a famous European painting as an example, mentioning that if an investor bought this painting in 19XX and held it until today, what would its price be; meanwhile, another investor invested the same amount in a U.S. stock index fund at that time, and what would that fund be worth today. In comparison, the latter's return rate far exceeds that of the former.

Thus, Buffett's conclusion is also: from an investment perspective, for non-yielding assets, their long-term investment return rates cannot compete with those of yielding assets.

This conclusion is similarly applied by the old gentleman to gold.

Next, Dan Bin mentioned Bitcoin and Tesla, and his subsequent viewpoint triggered me to summarize and review some previous thoughts.

His viewpoint (in essence) is:

Even if Bitcoin could rise to $1 million in the future, he believes that compared to Tesla, the latter can bring enormous value and potential. Therefore, in the long run, the return rate of the latter will be higher than that of the former.

His logical starting point is also: Bitcoin does not yield returns, while Tesla does and can generate substantial returns.

One point of his viewpoint, in my opinion, may spark controversy: whether Tesla can truly realize Musk's vision and bring to fruition the commercial scenarios he envisions.

However, I believe this point of contention is not important; it is not the core of this comparison.

The core of this comparison is that the future upside potential of Bitcoin, as a non-yielding asset, is limited, and it cannot compare to yielding assets—this has prompted me to reflect on and summarize some past viewpoints.

Regarding Bitcoin as a non-yielding asset, I am increasingly in agreement with the views of some traditional investors, including Dan Bin, that its investment returns cannot match those of yielding assets.

However, I differ from them in a significant way:

When they attempt to find a yielding asset with greater upside potential than Bitcoin, their primary and seemingly only target is traditional stocks.

I, on the other hand, will primarily focus on assets within the crypto ecosystem (though I will also pay attention to traditional stocks).

In an article written quite some time ago (around 2022 or 2023?), I first shared a viewpoint:

I believe that Ethereum's market capitalization will surpass that of Bitcoin in the future, primarily because Ethereum, as an application platform, can generate sustainable and healthy (transaction fee) revenue and can return this revenue to token holders through burning.

However, at that time, this viewpoint lacked some data and technical support, with key issues being:

(At that time) Ethereum's throughput was still too low; how could its performance support a large application ecosystem?

(With the technology architecture at that time) When Ethereum's price was too high, even if many applications could run on it, such high transaction fees would certainly hinder the promotion of applications; in this case, how could a large application ecosystem be established?

(With the technology architecture at that time) If Ethereum's performance were simply enhanced, would it severely compromise decentralization? If decentralization is to be maintained, how can Ethereum's performance be improved?

Looking back at these key issues now, it can be said that after years of effort, especially the accelerated efforts of Ethereum's core development team this year, these issues have found relatively mature and practical solutions:

Based on layer 2 scaling, zero-knowledge proofs, and EIL solutions, Ethereum's future can significantly enhance the performance of the entire ecosystem (L1+L2) while continuing to reduce application layer costs at a lower cost while maintaining decentralization:

• Transaction fees will no longer be an obstacle to application promotion;

• A large ecosystem can continue to expand based on improved performance and reduced costs;

• Decentralization will not be compromised due to performance improvements.

Combining Ethereum's current development status with the viewpoints mentioned by Dan Bin in this speech that I agree with,

• I now believe even more that Ethereum's market capitalization will surpass that of Bitcoin in the future;

• And I believe that in the future, among public chains capable of supporting smart contracts, Ethereum is very likely to generate greater investment returns than Bitcoin.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。