Originally published by Decrypt on November 10, 2026, at 01:14:10 UTC+8. This article reflects that reporting period.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin argued that ETH’s value should rest less on transaction-fee burning and more on Ethereum’s decentralization, censorship resistance and security. His comments challenge the “ultrasound money” narrative that gained traction after Ethereum began burning part of every transaction fee in 2021.
The distinction matters: reducing a token’s supply and making it useful as a long-term store of value are different arguments. Neither establishes a guaranteed price outcome.
What fee burning was supposed to do
Burning removes tokens from circulation. The case for ETH as “ultrasound money” was that greater Ethereum use would burn more ETH, reducing supply and supporting a higher price.
Some supporters also viewed transaction fees as a price floor, drawing a comparison with company shares supported by revenue and profits. Buterin disputed that reasoning. Although Ethereum burned millions of ETH annually from 2021 through 2023, he said this was “never a true floor,” because much of the activity came from uses within crypto, including lending and NFT purchases.
In comments posted on November 8, 2026, he wrote:
“We should not feel sad if fee burn is < 10% of breakeven indefinitely; the value of ETH comes from elsewhere.”
That statement was an argument about how to value ETH—not an announcement that Ethereum would stop burning fees.
Why maximizing the burn could conflict with usability
Connor Howe, co-founder and CEO of infrastructure provider Enso, told Decrypt that Ethereum’s expansion through layer-2 networks had weakened the fee-burning argument. Layer-2 networks process activity on top of Ethereum; Howe said a significant share of activity had moved to them, with users paying “almost nothing” to settle transactions.
He also pointed to a tension: optimizing ETH for fee burning would encourage higher gas prices—the transaction charges users pay—which users do not want.
Buterin argued that optimizing fees to justify ETH’s then-current market capitalization of approximately $270 billion would make Ethereum function like a “world-scale major corporation.” In his view, that would undermine its decentralization.
The alternative: security and durability
A store of value is an asset people expect to preserve purchasing power over time. Calling ETH a store of value expresses a thesis about its durability; it does not establish that its price will remain stable.
Binji Pande, a founding member of Ethlabs, agreed with Buterin and told Decrypt that ETH was a more “future-proof store of value” than Bitcoin. He cited Ethereum’s censorship resistance, broad distribution and availability, alongside its role in tokenization, stablecoins and decentralized finance, or DeFi.
Pande also argued that gold faces portability and physical-storage limits. His concerns about Bitcoin centered on preparedness for AI and quantum-computing threats. These were his assessments, not demonstrated conclusions that ETH would outperform either asset.
Decrypt reported that the Ethereum Foundation had formed a dedicated post-quantum team in January and that researchers had subsequently debated potential AI-powered threats. Ethlabs co-founder Julian Ma argued that Ethereum’s investment in security and formal verification strengthened its position as a programmable store-of-value asset.
Pande further said the Ethereum Foundation held less than 0.2% of ETH and that ETH had traded for 11 years. He argued that newer assets would struggle to establish similarly credible distribution and avoid centralization.
What changed—and what did not
The reported shift was in the argument for ETH’s value, not a newly announced change to its supply rules. Buterin emphasized the network’s resilience over the amount of ETH destroyed through fees.
Howe agreed with that direction but said it had taken too long to articulate. He also urged the Ethereum Foundation to pay closer attention to applications building on its network.