Bitcoin and Ethereum are two benchmarks in the cryptocurrency industry, and people often compare them together. But in fact, they are very different. It can be said that they represent two different schools of thought: Bitcoin is "useless use" and Ethereum is "useful use".
The goal of Bitcoin is to be digital gold, a benchmark for the value of the digital world. It has no other uses, especially no use value. Precisely because it has no use value, you cannot analyze it from the perspective of utility, and you cannot use indicators to measure its value. Therefore, Bitcoin cannot be defeated, because you cannot find the logic to defeat it. But on the other hand, Bitcoin does not leave much room for application development and ecological construction, and it is difficult to build anything on it. Many Bitcoin supporters have been promoting that Bitcoin is the first and last blockchain application, and Bitcoin has fully brought out the reasonable value of blockchain. Bitcoin has done everything that blockchain should do, and what Bitcoin has not done is what blockchain should not do. All other blockchain innovations except Bitcoin are unnecessary.
These views are typical of fundamentalist Bitcoin supremacism, which is of course an extreme admiration for Bitcoin, but also a surrender to Bitcoin’s inability to support greater value as an infrastructure.
Ethereum is different. Its original goal was to be a global computer. Now it is a digital economic settlement layer and a dedicated computer. It is a useful thing that has been used as an ecological infrastructure since the beginning. This is Ethereum's advantage, but it is also its weak link. Since it is useful, its usefulness can be broken down and measured based on some indicators, such as performance, TVL, number of users, throughput, etc. Because Ethereum is useful, in theory, if you make a blockchain that surpasses Ethereum in all indicators, it is a more useful blockchain and can beat Ethereum. Since 2017, there have been countless Ethereum Killer public chain narratives, some of which once received very high valuations. This is the logic behind them.
Bitcoin is like a big ball that takes shape on its own, but you can’t add tall buildings on it. Ethereum is like a flat plate that provides a foundation for building tall buildings, but it is more fragile than Bitcoin.
Although Trump said a lot in his speech at the Bitcoin Conference, it was actually all centered around Wall Street's logic for Bitcoin. He repeatedly elevated Bitcoin's status, like recognizing that Bitcoin is digital gold, expressing confidence in its value, and promising to provide policy support after his election, with each wave higher than the last. But apart from these, he did not mention other aspects, not even touching on topics like how blockchain is changing the way the Internet is used.
Bitcoin and Ethereum have different advantages. Bitcoin is positioned as digital gold, which continues to increase its market value and is mainly used for investment. Ethereum, on the other hand, is building a foundation to provide support for applications such as Defi, Web3, and RWA, and is mainly used for technology development.
Trump is a businessman and it is unlikely that he has such a deep understanding of the industry. Therefore, his speech mainly reflects the long-term position of Bitcoin Magazine, that is, Bitcoin is established as a mainstream compliant asset, and various businesses and derivatives can be carried out around this new asset in the mainstream financial circle. What gold had in the past, Bitcoin has now. Wall Street likes this narrative. As long as customers like to trade, there will be commissions to earn.
On the contrary, Silicon Valley prefers to create new technologies, tools, platforms, and application paradigms. Therefore, when creating applications such as DeFi, Web3, RWA, or industrial blockchain on Ethereum, you cannot expect Wall Street to be particularly active. You need to make some achievements first before Wall Street will join.
Although these statements by Trump did not have a direct impact on DeFi, Web3, and RWA, his words are still very meaningful. First of all, if a large amount of funds flow into digital assets, then these superstructure areas will definitely be affected. On the other hand, Trump mentioned that he would replace the head of the SEC, which is a very interesting thing. Because although Gensler is very annoying, his attitude towards Bitcoin during his tenure was relatively friendly and he did not make it too difficult. If we only look at it from the perspective of Bitcoin, Gensler's performance is still okay. But Gensler's real problem lies in his obstruction of the Ethereum ecosystem, especially Web3, especially when Hester Peirce's "Token Haven" proposal has been drafted, he has not taken action for a long time, which has seriously hindered the development of Web3. Therefore, replacing Gensler will not have much impact on Bitcoin, but it may be a good thing for Web3.
If the United States wants to become a paradise for Web3, the most critical thing is the attitude of the SEC, not Wall Street. Only by allowing Web3 projects to use tokens to incentivize users and governance in a natural and reasonable way, and at the same time implementing effective supervision and cracking down on coin issuance and fraud, can Web3 have a stable development cycle and business can truly develop. Only in this way can the industry truly get rid of the vicious cycle of ups and downs.
I don’t know how deep Trump’s views on this issue are, but it seems that Kamala Harris will not move in this direction. Because those who think they represent the direction of history will have no scruples when infringing on personal freedom and rights. So this US election is indeed related to the interests of the Web3 industry, let us wait and see.
