Cryptocurrency is too often seen through the narrow price lens. The dominant account surrounding Bitcoin, Ethereum and the wider cryptography market has become obsessed with an idea: the figures increase. Has Bitcoin broke $ 100,000? Did Ethereum double in a month? Does Altcoin go to the moon?
The financial media, X experts and even the defenders of cryptography regularly reduce an entire technological revolution to a speculative race at ever higher prices. But it is like assessing Apple or Nvidia only by their stock movements while ignoring the iPhone or infrastructure of GPUS feeding. It’s a superficial way of thinking – and in crypto, it’s also dangerous.
In traditional markets, value is ultimately based on use. The more a company sells products, the more income it generates. The more users it is, the greater the effect of its network. Apple is not a company of $ 3 billions simply because its stock market has increased; This is because more than a billion people use its ecosystem daily. Nvidia has not become a darling of Wall Street by a momentum; He built the most essential chips of the age of AI. The course of action follows the adjustment of the product market. In crypto, this principle is often reversed – the price comes first, and everything else becomes secondary or optional.
Read more: Advocat Ethereum William Mougayar to direct the new succession of the ecosystem of the ecosystem
Nowhere is this philosophy is more deeply rooted than in what one might call Saylorism – the ideology promoted by Michael Saylor of Microstrategy, the strongest evangelist of Bitcoin as a collateral. In this vision of the world, the main usefulness of Bitcoin is not transaction, construction or innovation – it simply holds. You buy bitcoin, never sell, you borrow against, repeat. Use is hoard.
Bitcoin is not a currency or a platform under Saylorism-it is a speculative safe, designed to appreciate to always and justify more loans. Essentially, each company becomes a leverage bitcoin fund, building its capital structure around a single bet: that the number is still increasing.
This is a radical difference in the logic underlying healthy companies. Traditional companies develop by creating value for others, through products, services and infrastructure. Under the word, the value is internalized, circular and ultimately recursive: you buy more bitcoin because it goes up, which makes it go up, which justifies buying more. It resembles a state of mind of corporate ponzi, not in legal terms, but in structural dynamics, where external adoption is less than the internal lever effect. The market does not need new users, it simply needs existing holders to continue to believe.
Compare this to Ethereum, the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, which took a different path. While Ethereum is also subject to the gravitational attraction of price speculation, and nobody looks like “the number increases” does not matter; Its value proposal is fundamentally rooted in use. ETH is not only a reserve of value; It is the fuel of an economy. It feeds decentralized requests, a billions of stablecoin transactions, token, real assets, NFTS mints, facilitates decentralized finances and supports governance. ETH has the request because the network has demand. The more people use Ethereum, the more eTh is necessary. And the more the ETH is burned by transaction costs, the more the offer is limited. The price here reflects activity, not just belief.
This distinction is deep. Ethereum’s growth is linked to its functionality, to what it allows for users and developers. It looks more like a traditional business than a safe. It is like Amazon in the early 2000s: difficult to assess by conventional measures but serving a growing ecosystem.
The difference between these two models – Bitcoin as Gold and Ethereum as an infrastructure – has triggered an endless debate on their competition. Some maintain that they are completely different species: Bitcoin is a monetary metal; Ethereum is a decentralized global computer, perhaps compared to digital oil.
It is just to ask: what is ultimately more precious, the gold you keep or the dollar you spend? The Bitcoin value depends on the people who hold it. Ethereum’s value depends on the people who use it. The two succeed, but the paths are not the same.
If cryptocurrency must evolve beyond its speculative adolescence, it must move away from the obsession of prices and towards the obsession of public services. This means asking more difficult questions: what is this protocol for? Who depends on it? What problem does it solve? The evaluation must come from participation, not only from price action. A blockchain that offers real utility for finance, identity, coordination or calculation deserves appreciation. But he must win it thanks to adoption, not ideology.
What if, instead of competing, Bitcoin and Ethereum found common ground and worked together?
This is where the occasion emerges: Ethereum serves as the most robust gateway for Bitcoin holders who seek to access the broader world of decentralized finance. No network does not compete Ethereum in terms of Defi depth and maturity. By converting the BTC into Ethereum compatible active ingredients, holders can engage in a dynamic lover for loans, intention and generation of elements, transforming sleeping bitcoin into active capital and value producer. Platforms like Aave, Lido, Ethena, Ether.fi and Maker allow BTC to participate in the way static holding simply cannot.
The result?
Mutual advantage: Ethereum attracts more liquidity, while Bitcoin wins an essential utility. It is a powerful synergy that amplifies the forces of the two networks.
Cryptocurrency is not only a stupid financial asset. It is a reinvention of the economic layer of the Internet. But its long -term success depends on the dopamine of daily price graphics. Because in the end, the most precious technologies are not those with the most flashy ticks; They are they who are used.
And use, not hoarding, is what strengthens sustainable value.
