Ethereum Value Debate Grows as Former ETH Supporter Questions Thesis

• Xaif Crypto shared criticism that Ethereum’s “ultrasound money” thesis has weakened.
• The argument says Layer 2 networks now capture much of the activity and fee value.
• BankXRP questioned why Ethereum avoided the same SEC pressure that Ripple faced.

Ethereum is facing renewed debate after Xaif Crypto shared comments from a former ETH supporter who questioned the network’s current value story. The criticism focused on whether ETH still captures value directly as activity moves from the Ethereum mainnet to Layer 2 networks.

Meanwhile, XRP-focused accounts revived old concerns over Ethereum’s regulatory treatment. BankXRP argued that Ripple faced heavy SEC action while Ethereum avoided similar pressure, even after its early token sale and foundation-led development history.

ETH Thesis Faces New Questions

Xaif Crypto’s highlights focused on Ethereum’s changing economic model. Maxi said the earlier “ultrasound money” thesis had once made ETH easy to understand. More Ethereum use meant more fees. More fees meant more ETH burned. Lower supply then supported the token’s long-term value story.

That model became popular after Ethereum introduced fee burning. However, the current criticism is that Ethereum’s scaling path has shifted much of the activity to Layer 2 networks. As a result, users transact off-chain, while Layer 2 platforms capture more of the fee flow and user activity.

Maxi argued that Ethereum gave up the most valuable parts of the stack, including congestion fees and MEV-related activity, while keeping settlement and data availability. That shift has changed the way traders discuss ETH’s value capture.

The newer argument says ETH may still become a store of value inside DeFi. However, critics point out that many markets now use stablecoins for trading, settlement, and collateral. Xaif Crypto cited platforms using USDC rather than ETH, arguing that broader on-chain activity does not automatically create direct ETH demand.

Related: Ex-Hodlnaut CEO Charged For False Statements on TerraUSD Exposure

XRP Community Revives SEC Debate

BankXRP connected the Ethereum discussion to Ripple’s long-running dispute with the SEC. The account said the SEC pursued Ripple while Ethereum “walked free,” pointing to William Hinman’s 2018 statement that ETH was not a security.

That argument remains common in the XRP community. Many XRP supporters believe Ethereum received regulatory room that Ripple did not. BankXRP also claimed that XRP challenged the correspondent banking system more directly, while Ethereum did not threaten the same payment rails.

The criticism comes as Ethereum supporters defend the network’s decentralization path. William Mougayar said Ethereum had received its own “Clarity Act” moment after Vitalik Buterin outlined the Ethereum Foundation’s direction.

Buterin said the Foundation should not act as Ethereum’s central authority. He added that his influence inside the organization would continue to decline and that the Foundation should operate as one node within the wider ecosystem.

Relacionado: Los validadores del libro mayor XRPL deben actualizar a la versión 3.1.3 antes del 27 de mayo o enfrentarse a un bloqueo de red

Value Capture Remains the Main Issue

Ethereum’s supporters point to settlement, security, privacy, and decentralization as long-term strengths. They argue that Layer 2 growth can expand Ethereum’s reach while keeping the mainnet focused on settlement and coordination.

Critics remain focused on revenue and value capture. Their concern is that lower mainnet fees weaken the old burn-driven investment thesis. If stablecoins dominate trading and tokenized markets, ETH may need a stronger role beyond settlement.

Even so, the debate centers on one question: Does Ethereum adoption still flow back to ETH value as directly as before? Xaif Crypto’s post pushed that issue into focus, while XRP accounts used the moment to revisit regulatory questions that have followed Ethereum and Ripple for years.