Ignas Questions Sacrificing Ethereum L1 Fee Revenue to Strengthen ETH's Store of Value Positioning
BIBIBI
AT A GLANCE
Ignas believes ETH has a store-of-value advantage, but scaling must not sacrifice Ethereum L1 fee revenue.
Article
【Vitalik's "ETH store of value thesis" questioned: Do not do it at the expense of L1 fee revenue】
In response to Vitalik's proposal that Ethereum should prioritize strengthening its store of value (SoV) positioning, DeFi researcher Ignas published a post stating that ETH may be more suitable as a store of value (SoV) asset than BTC and ZEC. Its advantages include native staking yields, privacy features on the roadmap, and potential deflation through transaction fee burning. Using BTC or ZEC as collateral to obtain loans typically requires relying on wrapped assets, or trusting banks and centralized exchanges; whereas ETH can achieve native collateralization and asset swaps on the same chain. However, although Ethereum is re-emphasizing the direction of store of value, the hope that Vitalik shifts toward this positioning is not because it is believed that the Ethereum L1 will never be able to generate enough fee revenue to drive ETH deflation. Scaling will also lower transaction costs, but the key still lies in whether market demand can grow in tandem, and whether the Ethereum community can drive demand higher.
Key points
01
Vitalik proposed that Ethereum should prioritize strengthening its store of value (SoV) positioning.
02
DeFi researcher Ignas responded that ETH may be more suitable as a store-of-value asset than BTC and ZEC.
03
The advantages of ETH listed in the text include native staking yield, the privacy features in the roadmap, and the potential deflation brought about by the burning of transaction fees.
04
Obtaining a loan using BTC or ZEC as collateral typically requires relying on wrapped assets, or trusting banks and centralized exchanges.
05
ETH can achieve native collateralization and asset exchange on the same chain.
06
Scaling will reduce transaction costs, but the key lies in whether market demand can grow in tandem and whether the Ethereum community can drive demand growth.
AI-assisted interpretation
The following is analysis, separate from reported facts. Verify important claims independently.
The core of this discussion is whether ETH should be viewed more as a store-of-value asset. Proponents argue that ETH has features such as staking rewards, potential privacy functionality, and fee burning, but if demand does not increase in tandem after scaling, fee revenue and the deflationary expectations driven by burning could be affected.
Why it matters to readers
It involves ETH's positioning, staking, and appeal as collateral, as well as the balance between scaling, fee revenue, and ETH burning.
Newcomers can understand SoV as "assets with long-term store-of-value." The controversy here is not simply about scaling, but about whether, after reducing fees, on-chain demand and fee revenue can grow in tandem.
Risks and unknowns
The source is a repost from a professional channel, and the original post link by Ignas or independent verification was not provided.
The text does not provide actual data on Ethereum L1 fee revenue, ETH burn volume, or on-chain demand.
The privacy features in the roadmap and their actual progress were not further confirmed in the evidence.
Related Developments
Loading event timeline…
Related concepts
Store of Value (SoV)
This term is not in the glossary yet. Browse related concepts in the glossary.
