Bitcoin or Ethereum
In the crypto community, investors fiercely defend why Bitcoin (BTC) will be more valuable than Ethereum (ETH) or vice versa in the future.
It was only just last year, we were presented with a situation where both were going up, and primarily because of the law of numbers, the growth rates for ETH were higher because the coin was priced in the low thousands.
When the pronounced equity selloff started to really accelerate at the beginning of this year, it offered a snapshot into which currency is best suited to endure heavy systemic stress.
The winner, and not even close I might add, was and still is Bitcoin.
Saying Ethereum has been having a hard time is an understatement, it has sunk from a peak of $4,800 to $1,000 today.
In relative terms, BTC has outperformed ETH by around 40% during this equity turmoil showing itself as still the best in show and the only reasonable crypto to invest in.
I am on record for saying ETH would be higher than BTC in the future earlier last year because of the accelerated growth input of the asset in a growth industry.
That all changed once the dynamics reversed and tailwinds became headwinds, and now, we are really witnessing ETH’s true colors.
It simply isn’t as good as BTC period.
I have heard of some pundits pushing back the timeline of when ETH will surpass BTC to 2030.
I would respond by saying what is that based on?
Hope?
I do believe the upcoming system shift to proof-of-stake (PoS) will take absolutely no part in ETH usurping the crypto throne ten years from now.
Investors don’t care if the coin is produced using hydrocarbon energy or windmills.
It’s not really a big deal to them.
I would probably say it will never happen, pointing out that BTC is digital gold while ETH is the second iteration of the internet.
I have seen nothing that suggests that ETH’s software or code is so much superior to that of BTC so much so that we are about to experience a revolutionary shift.
It’s not that at all.
To say that “there’s plenty of room for both” is also something I don’t agree with because I believe this is a winner take all type of proposition which is an inherent dynamic embedded in technology.
There are over 20,000 crypto coins and most of them are scams.
Even if ETH reduces hydrocarbon energy and increases its security, that doesn’t mean that BTC will have less security advances relative to ETH over time.
Even more ironic is the PoS switch means that the system will need to run a validator as the backbone of the network.
The validator is expected to maintain sufficient hardware and connectivity to participate in block validation and proposal.
In return, the validator is paid in ETH (their staked balance increases).
Validators miss out on ether rewards if they fail to participate when called upon, and their existing stake can be destroyed if they behave dishonestly.
Once activated, validators receive new blocks from peers on the Ethereum network.
No offense, this sounds like a centralized version of ETH and not a decentralized coin.
Proof-of-work is when any random guy can hook up to a power grid and produce a BTC which he can take proceeds from. He has no control over the system and nobody knows who he is.
The validators being held by a code of conduct and penalized or rewarded by that is absolutely what I consider centralization.
Ultimately, I don’t believe ETH has any special advantage over BTC and the PoS switch is a lot of marketing chutzpah.
The fact is that BTC has outperformed ETH when the equity sushi hit the fan and honestly, who cares about PoS.
Investors care about preserving the value of their portfolios.
If a choice between one, invest in BTC and avoid ETH.
