“The biggest problem now lies with ETH. BTC still has die-hard fans who believe BTC has consensus value, while ETH this round is extremely awkward. Any innovation for investors must translate into price, and this round ETH reached a high of $4500, now the price is $1500. This raises a question: can ETH innovate in the future to raise its price? Leaving aside whether it can reach $10,000, let's assume it can; from the low of $1500, it would only be a 6-fold increase. In a market where people can exit at any time, this is completely unfair to users who have been waiting for nearly ten years since 2020. If the lowest point is $500, what confidence do users have in believing a project that has no innovation and continues to decline? The only price that can respond to expectations is that ETH's price in the coming years far exceeds $10,000, $50,000 or $100,000, but is that possible...? Innovation is a point that people can never predict, and even when innovation arrives, you may find that you have exhausted yourself in the wrong direction.”
“BTC still has die-hard fans who believe BTC has consensus value”
I have firmly stated in my previous articles: I do not believe that many so-called BTC “die-hard fans” are true die-hard fans.
If BTC really drops below $30,000 due to unforeseen circumstances while the U.S. stock market hits new highs, we can see how many so-called “die-hard fans” are left then.
I'm not saying that everyone has to focus solely on Bitcoin (I'm not myself) while ignoring other markets, but using this opportunity to expose the truth of many so-called “die-hard fans.”
From another perspective, I have also said that I believe Bitcoin will reach $1 million within my lifetime. But even so, starting from the current $60,000 to $1 million, it would only be a 15-fold increase.
This growth rate, not to mention compared to the U.S. stock market, pales in comparison even to A-shares' “Cold King.”
“Cold King” rose from 53 yuan on January 30, 2023, to 1458 yuan on June 26, 2026, which is a growth of 26.5 times, far exceeding Bitcoin's yet-to-be-realized 15-time increase.
One is a visible 26.5 times, while the other is an unrealized 15 times.
Upon seeing this information, I believe some readers who were originally Bitcoin “die-hard fans” may feel that they are not so “die-hard” about Bitcoin anymore.
They might be thinking: Damn, it turns out the future growth of Bitcoin, which I once had high hopes for, is still not as promising as the A-share “Cold King” that I once looked down upon.
There are quite a few stocks like “Cold King” on the Star Market.
I'm not making this up. Last week I saw a so-called crypto KOL on X saying they are selling BTC to gather funds for the Star Market.
Bitcoin hasn't dropped to $30,000 yet, and some people are already not loyal anymore.
But I am still willing to hold onto Bitcoin and will not touch “Cold King.”
Why?
Because within my capacity, although Bitcoin's increase is not significant, I trust it and believe it can reach that level. I can hold it with peace of mind, completely ignoring short-term market fluctuations.
“ETH this round is extremely awkward”
How is ETH awkward?
All the articles I’ve written before indicate one point:
The core value elements of Ethereum have not changed at all; its monopoly position is strengthening, and innovation continues.
If we must say “awkward,” it is “awkward” for speculators, who feel embarrassed that they did not “outsmart” the market’s game and did not “outsmartly” sell at the top.
This kind of “smartness” is generally only achievable by speculators.
But can speculation continue?
Of course, it can.
I have said many times before that for geniuses, speculation can absolutely continue.
But I am not a genius, so I never look at the factors that “affect” speculation, and I never feel that the short-term price performance is awkward.
“This is completely unfair to users who have been waiting for nearly ten years since 2020”
There should be a typo here; the author likely meant to express, “This is completely unfair to users who have been waiting for nearly six years since 2020.”
Is six years of waiting very long?
Mr. Buffett bought Coca-Cola, and from 1998 to 2013, the stock price did not rise at all for a full 15 years, and worse, it even dropped by 50% at its lowest point.
Now looking back, was that 15 years still awkward?
Coca-Cola has increased from under $40 in 2013 to $86 now. Additionally, during this period, Mr. Buffett received cash dividends of $37.5 billion. Just the $37.5 billion in cash dividends far exceeds the initial investment of $1.3 billion.
Amazon went public in 1997 and didn’t reach breakeven until six years later in 2003. Even worse, in those six years, from 1999 to 2001, Amazon's stock price dropped by 94%.
During that painful six years, Bezos told investors in each annual letter to believe that his substantial investments would create a solid moat for Amazon in the future.
At this point, many readers may think this agony is over, right?
Not at all.
Right after that, for the next three years from 2003 to 2006, Amazon's stock price fell again by 56%.
Then from 2007 to 2008, it fell another 60% in that one year.
Counting from its IPO in 1997 to 2008, it was a full 11 years of agony.
NVIDIA’s stock price peaked at $0.55 in December 2001 and then began to languish, not recovering until October 2006. During that more than five years of lethargy, its stock price dropped to $0.07 at its lowest point, a decline of 87%.
In such a “kill the heart” market situation, Huang didn’t heed the opposition and insisted on investing heavily in developing CUDA in 2004 when no one understood what it was, finishing it only in 2007.
On one side was a continuously languishing stock price, and on the other, heavy investment into something completely incomprehensible. Is that not agonizing?
Did everyone think the agony stopped there?
That’s incorrect.
NVIDIA once again fell into stock price stagnation from 2007 to 2016, and from its peak of $0.90, it dropped to as low as $0.19, a decline of 79%.
Then, starting in 2016, cloud computing began to take off, AI showed potential, CUDA started to show its monopolistic advantages, and NVIDIA’s stock price began to soar.
What do the examples of Coca-Cola, Amazon, and NVIDIA show us?
How many great companies/projects have not experienced dark moments in “market performance”?
But should this “dark market performance” be a cause of anxiety?
For genuinely good companies/projects, short-term market performance is not important at all; what matters is whether their business model is still good, and whether their intrinsic value remains. If it is good and still exists, then its future will undoubtedly be brilliant.
If we must say this market performance “disappoints” someone, then it is likely the speculators who are being ruthlessly ejected by the market with thunderous means.
And this precisely is the most equitable treatment for the investors who genuinely believe in it, allowing those who support it to buy at the lowest possible price.
“Assuming the lowest point is $500, what confidence do users have in believing a project that has no innovation and continues to drop, with the only price that can meet expectations is ETH’s price in the following years far exceeding $10,000, $50,000, or $100,000, but is that possible?”
Ethereum “has no innovation”?
What I see is that innovation has been continuous. Isn’t there a new upgrade about to be released?
“What confidence do users have in believing a project that has no innovation and continues to drop?”
In reality, it is that speculators have not guessed the price trend correctly and thus lack “confidence,” right?
“The only price that can meet expectations is that ETH’s price in the next few years far exceeds $10,000, $50,000, or $100,000, but is that possible?”
For a company like Coca-Cola, when Mr. Buffett bought it in 1988, it was priced at $2.4, and now it is over $80. And this is the price after four stock splits. If it had not split, its price today would roughly be $1,322.
In other words, when Mr. Buffett bought Coca-Cola at $2.4 in 1988, if Coca-Cola had never split its stock, its stock price would today be approximately $1,322.
In 1988, how many people dared to imagine that a consumer goods company (not a flashy high-tech company) could rise to this price level in the future?
The examples of Amazon and NVIDIA are even more extraordinary; I am too lazy to calculate.
Regarding Ethereum's future potential, I have said this:
The future of the crypto ecosystem is within Ethereum. I am optimistic about Bitcoin, but even more optimistic about Ethereum.
Based on this judgment, I cannot guess how much Ethereum's future can rise, but I really do not believe that Ethereum's future cannot exceed that of a company selling soda. Moreover, considering its monopolistic position and the potential applications it may support for humanity and AI, its room for imagination is enormous—surpassing NVIDIA and Amazon would not surprise me.
“Innovation is something that people can never predict”
This is the interesting part of investing and a fundamental distinction between investing and speculating.
Speculators always focus on market prices and so-called price trends, constantly trying to figure out how to win in the price game. Innovation, fundamentals, moats, and business models are just tools used by speculators to narrate “stories,” attract emotions, and lift prices. If these tools are useful, they shout; if not, they lose patience.
Investors, on the other hand, believe in innovation, fundamentals, moats, and business models because they trust that these things will ultimately manifest dramatically in the market’s long-term performance, reflected in prices. It’s just that they cannot grasp the time factor, and it doesn’t matter; they patiently wait.
“Only to find you have burned out in the wrong direction by the time innovation arrives”
How can genuinely honest investing possibly lead to this outcome?
Among the principles I have repeatedly emphasized are the following:
First, always leave enough for 18 months’ worth of living expenses (the more, the better).
Second, investments must be made with spare money.
Third, think clearly about your risks before investing; you can only proceed if you can bear the risk of your investment going to zero.
How could using spare money cause you to burn out?
Only those who are desperately eager, risking everything, disregarding everything, trying to gamble small amounts for large rewards, and dreaming of getting rich overnight would feel burnt out before their “rich dream” materializes, right?
“In the wrong direction” is precisely the cost of investment that investors should factor in before investing, which is the risk they should contemplate. If you cannot bear the consequences of a potential bad investment, then that investment should never occur.
I am here to invest, not to speculate.
From the perspective of investing in Ethereum, we can discuss which factors in its fundamentals someone may not be optimistic about, and which fundamental factors are perceived as favorable:
For example, like David Hoffman, he sold Ethereum because he believes the current price has reflected the fundamentals, but I do not believe this, so I used the formulas in my previous articles to express my view.
Another example is whether the Ethereum Foundation’s “self-destructive behavior” is good or bad; I have expressed my confusion, but I still maintain an optimistic observation of it, and in my heart, I trust Vitalik's choices, believing that no one in the world cares more about and treats this great project he originated with greater caution than him.
If we do not discuss the above-mentioned fundamental elements, but instead use the short-lived price movements and price stagnation over just a few years to discuss Ethereum’s “investment value,” then in my view, we are not truly discussing investing issues but expressing the emotions of speculators who have placed their bets wrong.
I have never believed that such emotions hold any value, nor will I pay attention to them.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
