Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin is pushing a different way to think about ETH’s value. He argues the asset should not depend mainly on transaction fee burns. Instead, he says its case rests on decentralization, security, privacy, and resistance to censorship. That shift matters because fee burns became a core part of how many holders explained ETH.
The fee burn story is weaker
EIP-1559 arrived in 2021. It lets Ethereum burn part of each transaction fee. When network use was high, burned ETH could exceed new issuance, making ETH deflationary at times. The community called this ultrasound money. The idea was simple: activity creates burns, burns reduce supply, and supply reduction supports price.
That story has lost some force. Transaction fees have fallen as scaling tools take more activity off the main chain. The median fee was about 35 cents in January, according to the article, and reportedly fell to 3.5 cents in October. Daily transaction volume rose by more than 50 percent over the same period. Cheap fees help users. They also mean less ETH is burned and less revenue flows to the network.
CROPS as the long-term case
Buterin points to CROPS: resistance to censorship and hijacking, open source, privacy, and security. He thinks these traits should carry more weight in how ETH is explained to investors. They may matter more as artificial intelligence takes a larger role in economic systems. I think that is a reasonable point, though it is harder to price than a supply burn.
This is not a change to Ethereum’s monetary policy. It is more a strategic argument about narrative. Bitcoin supporters may reject it. Some Ethereum community members say a clearer and more sustainable story is needed. Perhaps both sides are partly right: fee burns still matter, but they are not a complete basis for value.
