ETH-native is not a narrative choice. It’s an architectural one. Ethereum didn’t become durable by abstracting its core asset away. It became durable by forcing work, risk, and reward to settle in the same place. That place is ETH! ETH is where cost is paid, Where security is bonded, Where responsibility is priced, And where rewards return. Remove ETH from the loop and the system can still scale, But it no longer closes. When infrastructure isn’t ETH-native, value doesn’t disappear. It escapes! It routes through FX layers, synthetic units, off-chain accounting or discretionary distribution. The system runs. But usage stops reinforcing responsibility. That’s not decentralization. That’s leakage. Ethereum chose constraint instead. One settlement asset. One economic language. Unavoidable paths from usage to security to participation. No opt-outs. No translations. As infrastructure matures, this stops being philosophical and becomes economic. Capital doesn’t care about intent. It prices enforcement. Not what might accrue, But what must settle when the network is used. So the real design question isn’t about scale. It’s about closure. When your system does more work tomorrow, where does that work settle? If the answer isn’t ETH, the loop isn’t complete.(SSV Network)