Recently, Vitalik published an article online outlining the reasons for repositioning Ethereum (ETH) from a burning token to a store of value.

This is one of the rare discussions by Vitalik in recent years regarding the economic attributes and value anchoring of the Ethereum token. Consequently, many people on the internet have focused on and shared this article, all expressing excitement about this repositioning.

My core focus on Ethereum has always been centered on one point:

That is, regardless of changes or upgrades, does Ethereum consistently maintain its decentralization in operation, along with the resulting implications of censorship resistance and permissionlessness.

As long as this point remains unchanged, I will not worry about Ethereum’s potential, nor about its future.

Why?

Because this point is the lifeblood of the crypto ecosystem, the source of creativity, and the most significant, irreplaceable, and hardest-to-imitate moat and commercial barrier that Ethereum possesses among all smart contract public chains.

Therefore, when I repeatedly shared every externally perceived "earth-shattering" event and statement occurring in the Ethereum ecosystem, I have always analyzed it from this perspective, and the outcome has always been the same:

All those matters do not, in my opinion, affect Ethereum's potential in the long term; Ethereum remains the future and driving force of the crypto ecosystem.

Similarly, when analyzing all of Vitalik’s actions and statements, I also only look at this point.

What do I think is the core point of Vitalik’s article?

I believe the two main points worth noting are:

First, he thinks that if we focus too much on viewing ETH as a burning token, it will push Ethereum to prioritize commercial promotion and profit-driven motives, making it difficult to balance decentralization and censorship resistance.

Second, he believes that positioning Ethereum as a store of value can better enable Ethereum to focus on decentralization and CROPS (which stands for Censorship Resistance, Open Source, Privacy, Security).

So ultimately, Vitalik believes that the store of value will allow Ethereum to concentrate on the point I care most about.

Given this, I similarly have nothing to be worried or anxious about.

However, talk is one thing, and action is another. How will Ethereum specifically reflect the shift from "burning token" to "store of value" in its upgrades and operations?

Vitalik's article does not detail this, so we will continue to observe the future changes and upgrades of Ethereum.

As for whether this adjustment is correct, or whether being a "burning token" or a "store of value" better captures value in the crypto ecosystem, or if future adjustments will be necessary, this returns to one of the three criteria I repeatedly share for evaluating a company: a good corporate culture.

A good corporate culture allows a company to maintain its original intention and remember its mission in a rapidly changing environment, readily correcting any errors or deviations from the path as soon as they are discovered.

Applying this standard to Ethereum, the reasoning is the same.

We need to look at Vitalik’s past words and actions to see if he consistently steadfastly adheres to the decentralization of Ethereum amidst various changes and whether he quickly corrects mistakes when he realizes he has erred.

If so, then there is nothing to worry about. Because even if Vitalik’s above thoughts are wrong, I believe he can correct them upon realizing the errors; even if Ethereum temporarily takes a wrong path, it is merely a detour, and it will ultimately return to the right track.

Thus, for this adjustment defined by Vitalik, we will rely on practice to verify it. I believe that even if this adjustment is wrong, the most suitable way or positioning will eventually be found.

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[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。