Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
> ETH needs its own Michael Saylor With all due respect to @sassal.eth and others who hold this view: I donโt think it does. The only reason BTC maxis love Saylor is because he holds the promise of pumping their bags. Itโs a Faustian growth hack, though. If BTC moons, Saylor becomes its natural figurehead and spokesperson. If BTC dumps hard, $MSTR becomes a single point of cascading failure. Either outcome is terrible. It would be much more antifragile for BTC to achieve the same scarcity by being near-evenly spread across a large population. As for ETH, thereโs only enough supply for every human on this planet to own 0.015 of it (~$50). Imagine a world with far fewer whales and much more krill โ true abundance. To repeat: we donโt need a Saylor. Instead, we need to organically put ETH into as many hands as possible, which itself requires that we keep increasing its utility https://x.com/sassal0x/status/1870620451917209603
8 replies
10 recasts
72 reactions
OTTI๐จ๐๐ฉ
@zeuzc
I appreciate your perspective and largely agree with your argument. Ethereum doesnโt need a Michael Saylor because its value proposition fundamentally differs from Bitcoinโs. While Bitcoinโs primary narrative revolves around being โdigital goldโ and a store of value, Ethereum thrives as a platform for innovation and utility, where value is derived from the diverse applications built on top of it.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
I was once a Bitcoin supporter and donโt wish the Saylor / digital gold maximalism upon that project either, by the way. But that ship has long sailed and Bitcoin will never return to its e-cash, self-custody, cypherpunk roots
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
