- Messari warns Ethereum risks losing execution-layer value after EIP-4844, as L2s capture fees, ETH turns inflationary, and its valuation leans increasingly on a weak digital gold narrative.
- Yield-bearing stablecoins may erode USDT dominance by redistributing risk-free yields, but synthetic models like USDe face structural depeg risks tied to funding rates and market cycles.
- Historical backtesting shows Messari’s forecasts are directionally accurate, yet portfolio bias and liquidity dynamics mean its reports guide narratives, not precise timing or retail-level returns.
Messari’s 2026 Crypto Theses examine Ethereum’s value capture crisis, the rise of yield-bearing stablecoins, and why institutional research demands skepticism despite a strong historical track record.
Messari 2026 Crypto Theses: Why Speculation Is No Longer Enough (Part 1)
In Part 1, I focused on Messari’s structural arguments around L1 valuation traps, chain abstraction, AI agents, derivatives, and DePIN. In this second installment, the discussion shifts from growth narratives to internal tensions within the crypto system itself—particularly Ethereum’s positioning, the evolution of stablecoins, and the importance of maintaining skepticism when reading institutionally produced research.
These sections are less about where capital wants to go, and more about where value capture is quietly leaking, and why some long-held assumptions may no longer hold.
ETHEREUM’S IDENTITY CRISIS
One of the more striking sections of the report is Messari’s extended discussion on Ethereum’s strategic dilemma. The report raises a provocative question: is Ethereum slowly turning into a “settlement garbage dump” for its own Layer 2 ecosystem?
To understand this concern, the context matters.
The Ethereum Cancun upgrade and EIP-4844 introduced blobs, dramatically reducing data availability costs for L2s. From a user and scalability standpoint, this upgrade was a success. Transaction fees dropped, and rollups became significantly cheaper to operate.
However, the economic side effects were far less favorable for Ethereum itself.
Before blobs, meaningful activity on applications like Uniswap required users to transact directly on Ethereum mainnet, consuming ETH and contributing to fee burn. After the upgrade, much of that activity migrated to L2s such as Base, where fees are collected at the rollup level. Ethereum still receives settlement fees, but only a fraction of what it once captured.
As a result, Ethereum’s gas consumption declined, ETH burn slowed, and by 2025 the asset shifted from deflationary back to inflationary. This is not merely a technical footnote—it directly impacts Ethereum’s monetary narrative.
Messari argues that unless Ethereum can reassert value capture through mechanisms like shared sequencers, mainnet execution upgrades, or some form of native sharding that restores economic gravity, its valuation will increasingly rely on a “digital gold” narrative.
And on that battlefield, Ethereum faces a structural disadvantage. As a monetary asset, it cannot outcompete Bitcoin on simplicity, immutability, or brand clarity. Without renewed execution-layer relevance, Ethereum risks being squeezed between BTC’s monetary dominance and L2s’ application dominance.
YIELD-BEARING STABLECOINS AND THE SHADOW BANKING SHIFT
Another major theme in the report is the transformation of stablecoins from passive settlement tools into active yield-bearing instruments.
Messari predicts that interest-generating stablecoins will increasingly erode the market share of Tether. The reasoning is straightforward: institutions are no longer willing to forgo 5% risk-free yields simply to hold non-yielding dollars.
The report introduces the concept of “risk-free yield extraction.” Historically, USDT holders effectively donated yield to Tether, which reinvested reserves and captured billions in annual profit. In a higher-rate environment, this inefficiency becomes too visible to ignore.
Protocols like Ethena represent a direct challenge to this model. Ethena combines liquid staking tokens with delta-neutral hedging strategies to distribute underlying yield back to stablecoin holders. Importantly, USDe’s listing on major centralized exchanges in 2025 granted it real settlement functionality, not just DeFi composability.
However, Messari does not ignore the risks.
Because USDe is a synthetic stablecoin backed by derivatives hedging, it carries structural depeg risk under extreme market conditions. Its yield originates from two primary sources: staking rewards from LSTs and funding rates paid by perpetual futures traders.
In bull markets, long traders subsidize the system, allowing USDe holders to “collect rent.” In prolonged bear markets, that flow reverses, and the system must pay to maintain hedges. Yield is therefore cyclical, not guaranteed.
Messari’s optimism here implicitly assumes continued demand for leverage and a constructive BTC market environment. One useful indicator to monitor is LST premium behavior; sustained distortions often signal rising stress beneath the surface.
BACKTESTING AND HEALTHY SKEPTICISM
Despite its depth and historical accuracy, Messari’s research should not be treated as gospel.
As an institutionally aligned research platform, Messari inevitably reflects portfolio exposure and strategic bias. The report’s consistently bullish tone on Solana, for example, aligns closely with its disclosed holdings. This does not invalidate the thesis, but it does demand critical distance.
To test this, I used AI-assisted analysis to backtest Messari’s major predictions over recent years.
The results are mixed but instructive. In late 2023, Messari’s call that Solana was the only L1 capable of seriously challenging Ethereum proved remarkably accurate, with SOL rising from roughly $20 to above $200 in 2024. Its relative bearish stance on Ethereum also played out, as ETH/BTC continued to weaken into 2025.
Predictions around DePIN were partially correct. Large projects like Render and Helium performed well, but many smaller initiatives ultimately collapsed. Stablecoin forecasts fared better, with yield-bearing models emerging as one of the most consistent growth segments in 2025.
Overall, the hit rate is strong—but not perfect.
This reinforces a broader point: Messari’s reports are best read as directional compasses, not trading manuals. They excel at identifying structural shifts early, but they do not account for liquidity timing, narrative decay, or retail-driven reflexivity.
TRANSITIONING TO PART 3
If Part 1 examined where crypto infrastructure is expanding, and Part 2 explored where value is leaking and assumptions are breaking, Part 3 will focus on the final layer: how these structural insights translate—or fail to translate—into actual market returns.
In crypto, fundamentals matter. But liquidity and narrative still decide who gets paid.
That tension is where the next cycle will be won or lost.
The above viewpoints are referenced from @Web3___Ace
〈Messari’s 2026 Crypto Theses: Power Struggles, Stablecoins, and Skepticism (Part 2)〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。
