I have mixed feelings too. On one hand, I don’t see ETH accruing primary monetary premium in the long term in the same way that BTC does. However, I do see it getting some secondary monetary premium from the recent stablecoin push by the administration. In fact, I expect this to continue in a bipartisan way because both deficit hawks and deficit doves on both sides of the aisle prefer USD dominance over other fiats. Stablecoins on ETH and to some extent on TRON provide a permanent bid for the underlying gas token respectively. There are also some other considerations like account abstraction and the coming Plasma and Stable chains but on the first order right now, ETH benefits greatly from the stablecoin meta. When it comes to treasury companies, I would say that there are 1) idiosyncratic risks between each treasury company even for the same underlying and 2) correlated risks between treasuries of the same underlying and between treasuries of different tokens. As an example, MSTR and a BTC mining company might both be doing a BTC treasury strategy. Before considering the effect of any treasury strategy, the mining company is already more levered because the mining hardware inventory and the mining business are both positive beta to BTC price while MSTR is more of a pure play. Also, MSTR converts have putable and callable triggers and windows and on top of that has a more complicated capital stack with things like the new STRC product, STRK and others. Some treasuries might do more converts and some might do more ATMs. You can similarly do a careful analysis of ETH treasury companies to understand better the dynamics under different possible price paths. I don’t want to leak too much alpha here. Last thing I’ll say is that treasury companies are effectively price insensitive buyers.(Galois Kevin)