In a recent interview, Nansen's CEO Alex Svanevik presented a provocative argument: the utility and success of the Ethereum public blockchain do not automatically translate to investment value for its native token, ETH.
- The discussion draws an analogy to the US dollar: while the dollar is globally essential and useful, it is not typically considered a long-term asset for hoarding or investment appreciation.
- Similarly, Ethereum's infrastructure and the EVM standard may be widely adopted and successful, but this does not inherently guarantee ETH's value as a scarce, appreciating asset.
- A key distinction is made between network utility and token investment logic. The usefulness of a blockchain network and the investment worthiness of its token are suggested to be two separate analytical frameworks.
- The interview prompts reflection on whether the success of a public blockchain project and the investment value of its native token should be evaluated independently.
In the latest Bonnie Blockchain interview, the host and Nansen CEO Alex Svanevik raised a highly controversial point: even if Ethereum is very useful as a public blockchain, it does not necessarily mean that ETH has investment value.
They used the US dollar as an analogy—the dollar is extremely important and useful, but almost no one views it as a "long-term hoarding asset." Similarly, Ethereum as infrastructure and EVM as a development standard may be successful, but this does not automatically equate to ETH's scarcity and return logic as an asset. In other words, "whether the network is useful" and "whether the token is worth investing in" may be two completely different judgment systems. Ethereum and ETH should perhaps be analyzed separately.
What's your opinion on this issue?
Should we more clearly distinguish between the "success of a public blockchain/crypto project" and the "investment value of its native token"?
