Ethereum’s ‘Ultrasound Money’ Concept Faces Strong Critique
We have always followed the principles of transparency and clear information. Some of our content includes affiliate links, and we may earn a small commission through these partnerships. These partnerships do not influence our editorial independence or opinion. By using our site, you accept our privacy policy and terms and conditions.
James Mitchell combines investment banking with cryptocurrency journalism to analyze the institutional adoption of digital assets. Specializing in ETFs and regulation, he translates complex developments…
Cryptocurrency is a high-risk asset class, and investing carries significant risk, including the potential loss of some or all of your investment. The information on this website is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or gambling advice. Cryptowinx does not endorse any specific exchange or gaming platform. For more details, please read our terms and full disclaimer.
Cryptowinx navigates the digital asset universe with a dynamic, forward-looking vision. Throughout our evolution, we have followed every market cycle, from vertical rises to corrections, always remaining a solid point of reference for our community. Our team is made up of industry experts and analysts who experience the blockchain ecosystem daily: we constantly monitor Bitcoin’s stability, study the expansion of the Ethereum ecosystem, and analyze the new frontiers of crypto casinos. We are committed to absolute editorial integrity, separating the signal from the noise through rigorous fact-checking and multi-perspective news analysis. In a landscape where innovations emerge in moments, our mission is to simplify complex concepts and offer transparency into what is established and what is still experimental.
Learn more Cryptowinx
The concept of Ethereum as “ultrasound money” is encountering significant skepticism. Since transitioning to a Proof-of-Stake model in 2022, Ethereum (ETH) has seen a staggering 65% decline against Bitcoin (BTC), raising questions about its deflationary potential.
Analysis indicates that since the transition, Ethereum’s price trajectory has disappointed many investors. The anticipated scarcity of Ether that proponents expected from the EIP-1559 upgrade, which introduced a mechanism for burning transaction fees, has not materialized as originally hoped.
Despite the initial promise of becoming scarcer than Bitcoin, Ether’s supply has grown at about 0.23% annually since the Merge, contrary to the deflationary narrative. In comparison, the anticipated decrease in ETH issuance failed to keep pace with inflation in its supply. The burn mechanism was expected to lead to a negative supply growth rate; however, this has only been achieved under conditions of high network activity.
As of March, the typical transaction fee on Ethereum plummeted to approximately $0.21, a substantial drop of 54% from the previous year. This decrease in fees greatly affects the network’s ability to burn ETH since lower fees translate to less ETH being removed from circulation.
The migration of numerous transactions to more affordable layer-2 solutions further complicates Ethereum’s deflationary argument. Data shows that these layer-2 networks are currently handling significantly more transactions compared to Ethereum’s mainnet, which detracts from the main network’s burn mechanism.
In contrast, many investors favor Bitcoin due to its stringent supply cap of 21 million coins. The predictability associated with Bitcoin’s inflation rate of 0.85% is a strong selling point, particularly when compared to Ethereum’s uncertain monetary policies. Analysts believe that the rigid structure of Bitcoin’s supply is appealing and affords stability that many altcoins, including Ethereum, struggle to match.
While Bitcoin has seen substantial growth in demand and value, Ethereum’s performance has been lackluster over the past few years. Between 2021 and 2026, ETH briefly surpassed its prior all-time high of nearly $4,800 before flagging in terms of growth, while Bitcoin has managed to double its price following a peak in 2021.
Further sentiment around ETH has been affected by periodic selling by prominent figures associated with the Ethereum project, including Vitalik Buterin. This has led to investor skepticism regarding Ethereum’s long-term viability and has contributed to the perception that insiders may be taking advantage of market strength rather than reinforcing confidence in the cryptocurrency.
As the debate continues over Ethereum’s future and its positioning as “ultrasound money,” the ongoing performance against Bitcoin may shape investor decisions moving forward. The challenges surrounding Ethereum’s monetary policy and its implications for scarcity remain pivotal issues as the market evolves.
Leave the reaction
James Mitchell
Commentaries
Add your comment
Fill in necessary fields and publish