In the comments at the end of articles these days, many readers have expressed their disappointment with Ethereum's performance in this round.

In fact, not only these readers, but I have also expressed my disappointment multiple times in my articles.

But disappointment aside, we still need to rationally analyze the reasons behind it:

Is it a problem with Ethereum itself? Or is it a problem with the entire ecosystem?

If it is a problem with Ethereum itself, have these issues been resolved in other blockchain projects?

First, let me state my conclusion:

I still hold my position in Ethereum, and that hasn't changed at all; I haven't swapped Ethereum for other smart contract blockchain tokens; and I still have a long-term optimistic view of Ethereum.

I remember mentioning in previous articles that I evaluate layer one blockchain projects based on three criteria:

How decentralized is its operation?

How is its community?

How is its team?

Today, my evaluation criteria remain unchanged.

Based on these three criteria, the answers I arrive at are quite simple.

Among all layer one blockchains that support Turing-complete smart contracts:

Ethereum has the best degree of decentralization in its operation, and Vitalik is still doing everything possible to promote its further decentralization.

Its community remains the strongest and most cohesive.

Its team continues to steadfastly uphold Satoshi Nakamoto's philosophy and is methodically advancing the project, even though the challenges are increasing and the pace is becoming more staggered.

Ethereum is far from perfect and has many issues (such as being criticized for the foundation's lack of transparency, becoming increasingly bureaucratic, etc.). A careful study might reveal 100 or even 1000 flaws. But I still have to say, looking around the entire crypto ecosystem, I truly cannot find another smart contract public chain that surpasses Ethereum in these three aspects.

Some of the "problems" with Ethereum criticized in various articles, in my view, are not actually problems with Ethereum itself. For example, some criticize the Ethereum team for not focusing on application development.

Application development should not be the primary focus of Ethereum. The Ethereum team's focus should be on building the most decentralized, neutral, and censorship-resistant infrastructure, creating a "good nest" where any phoenix (application) that flies into this nest can settle down and thrive.

As for what kind of phoenix (application) this "nest" can attract, that should be left to the infinitely creative hackers and geeks around the world.

Another example is that some articles criticize Ethereum's value capture being taken away by layer two scaling solutions.

There is no need to worry about this.

Layer two scaling is still part of the Ethereum ecosystem, and its security ultimately relies on Ethereum, which means the overall ecosystem's value will eventually return to Ethereum. The value will first go to layer two scaling and then spill over to Ethereum. This will only make the entire Ethereum ecosystem stronger and raise the barriers to entry.

Many readers have mentioned that Ethereum's price performance is not as good as that of some other blockchains, believing that those blockchains may have long-term potential that exceeds Ethereum.

I have never used short-term price performance to measure a project's long-term potential.

If we look back at Ethereum's growth journey, we can appreciate the hardships and challenges it has faced to reach its current status as the "king of smart contract public chains."

How many incidents, conflicts, and attacks has it endured?

It has always been under the spotlight, and any of its issues cannot escape scrutiny.

Without this kind of hellish tempering, it would not have achieved its current status.

This hellish tempering is not only a challenge for the project itself but also for the project team, the project community, and especially the spiritual leaders.

When we consider whether a project has the potential to topple Ethereum's position, we might as well think:

When that project sits on the "throne," can it withstand the tests that Ethereum has endured? Can its team, community, and spiritual leaders endure the trials that Ethereum has faced?

The "throne" is not so easily attained.

If I must ask why Ethereum's price has not performed as well as some other blockchain tokens in this cycle?

I thought seriously, and if we purely look at applications, it seems that aside from MEME coins being quite active on some other blockchains, I can't think of any other new applications.

But can MEME coins be considered an innovation in applications? Even if they can, will they be able to sustain themselves in the long run?

If a project's token price increase does not stem from a sustainable application innovation, I would regard such price increases as short-term market fluctuations rather than fundamental factors that change the project's long-term potential.

So I would ignore such short-term price comparisons.

In fact, what has impressed me the most in this cycle is Bitcoin's innovation, especially the innovations led by inscriptions. But unfortunately, after the protocol innovations, the Bitcoin ecosystem has almost stalled in application innovation.

Looking at the entire crypto ecosystem, there has been a lack of noteworthy application innovations in this cycle.

Returning to the questions I raised at the beginning of the article:

Is it a problem with Ethereum itself? Or is it a problem with the entire ecosystem?

My answer is: The fundamental reason for Ethereum's price stagnation in this cycle is the lack of application innovation, but this issue is not only a problem for the Ethereum ecosystem; it is also a problem faced by the entire crypto ecosystem.

If it is a problem with Ethereum itself, have these issues been resolved in other blockchain projects?

My answer is: This problem has not been resolved in other blockchain ecosystems either.

In fact, when it comes to price performance comparisons, I think more about why Ethereum's price relative to Bitcoin has been continuously declining in this bear market—from one Bitcoin being able to exchange for about 15 Ethereum in the last bull market to now one Bitcoin being able to exchange for over 20 Ethereum.

I believe the reason here is still the lack of application innovation.

After the U.S. government relaxed regulations for institutional investors in this cycle, institutional investors began to eye this ecosystem.

But when they found the entire ecosystem lacking in applications and users, and could hardly find any "application value" they could understand, how much could they invest?

We can't expect institutions like BlackRock to buy MEME coins, right? They probably wouldn't be interested in DeFi tokens that lack value empowerment either.

So in this situation, the only options left for them that are controllable in risk, have good liquidity, and high consensus are almost just Bitcoin.

Following this logic, it becomes much easier to understand Bitcoin's price dominance over other tokens.

But I believe this is definitely not the norm, as the crypto ecosystem cannot always rely on Bitcoin. For the crypto ecosystem to fundamentally change our lives in the future, there must be real application innovations and new business models. And I still believe that these innovations are most likely to occur within the Ethereum ecosystem.

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。