Opinion: Why Did Trump Not Mention Ethereum and Web3 in His Speech?
Author: Meng Yan
Translation: WuBlockchain
On July 27, during Trump’s 50-minute speech at the Bitcoin conference in Nashville, many considered it another milestone event for the crypto asset industry. However, it was noted afterward that Trump did not mention Ethereum, blockchain, or Web3 at all; the only time Vitalik was mentioned, it was later discovered to be a mishearing.
Why didn’t Trump mention Web3? The exact reason is unknown; you might have to ask the person who wrote Trump’s speech, reportedly David Bailey, CEO of Bitcoin Magazine. However, if you view this within the broader context of the entire crypto industry, it becomes easier to understand.
In short, Trump’s speech essentially reflected the progressive Bitcoin maximalist stance.
Bitcoin and Ethereum are the two leading forces in the crypto industry, often compared side-by-side. However, they are fundamentally different, representing two entirely different ideological camps: Bitcoin embodies “useless utility,” while Ethereum represents “useful utility.”
Bitcoin aims to be digital gold, the standard of value in the digital world, with no other use, especially no practical use. Precisely because it has no practical use, you can’t analyze it from a utility perspective or measure its value with metrics. Thus, Bitcoin is unbeatable because there’s no logical way to outcompete it. On the other hand, Bitcoin leaves little room for application development and ecosystem building; it’s challenging to build anything on top of it. Many Bitcoin enthusiasts repeatedly claim that Bitcoin is the first and should be the last blockchain application, fully realizing the reasonable value of blockchain. They argue that Bitcoin has accomplished everything that should be done with blockchain, and anything blockchain does beyond Bitcoin is unnecessary. These views are typical of hardcore Bitcoin maximalism. This extreme reverence for Bitcoin also acknowledges its inability to support greater value as an infrastructure.
Ethereum, however, is different. Its original goal was to be a global computer, and now it serves as a settlement layer for the digital economy and a specialized computer — it’s something useful. From the start, Ethereum was intended as an infrastructure for ecosystems. This is its strength but also its vulnerability. Since it has utility, its usefulness can be broken down and measured by metrics such as performance, TVL, user numbers, throughput, etc. Because Ethereum is useful, theoretically, if you create a blockchain that surpasses Ethereum in all these aspects, it would be a more useful blockchain and could potentially outperform Ethereum. Since 2017, numerous public chains have been dubbed “Ethereum Killers,” with some even achieving high valuations at one point. This narrative stems from the idea that better utility could potentially dethrone Ethereum.
So you could make an analogy: Bitcoin is like a large ball, complete in itself, but you can’t build on it. Ethereum, on the other hand, is like a flat surface, providing a good foundation for building structures, but it is more fragile than Bitcoin.
In Trump’s speech this time, although he said a lot, it mainly revolved around the Wall Street Bitcoin logic, spiraling and reinforcing the acknowledgment of Bitcoin as digital gold, expressing confidence in its value, and offering policy assurances post-election. However, it didn’t touch on other aspects, especially not on how blockchain could change internet application paradigms.
Bitcoin and Ethereum offer different promises. Bitcoin aims to solidify its position as digital gold and continually increase its market cap. Ethereum, meanwhile, lays the foundation for applications like DeFi, Web3, and RWA.
I believe Trump couldn’t have such a detailed understanding of this industry. Thus, his speech mainly reflected the long-standing position of the Bitcoin Magazine folks, which is that they’ve finally established Bitcoin as a mainstream compliant asset. Now, they can offer all sorts of business and derivative products around this new asset in the mainstream financial circle. Everything that was associated with gold in the past can now be applied to Bitcoin. Wall Street likes this narrative because as long as customers enjoy trading, there’s commission to be made.
In contrast, creating new technologies, tools, platforms, and application paradigms is something Silicon Valley likes to do. Therefore, when it comes to creating DeFi, Web3, RWA, or industrial blockchains on Ethereum, we can’t expect Wall Street to be particularly proactive; we’ll have to make significant progress first before Wall Street gets involved.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that Trump’s statements, if implemented, would be meaningless for DeFi, Web3, or RWA. They would indeed have a significant impact. Firstly, the influx of capital into digital assets could itself affect these upper-level areas. Additionally, Trump’s mention of replacing the SEC chair is quite intriguing. Although Gensler is widely disliked, to be fair, he has generally been favorable towards Bitcoin during his tenure, without much obstruction. If one were to evaluate Gensler purely from a Bitcoin perspective, his performance might not be stellar, but it’s quite satisfactory. Gensler’s real conservatism is evident in his approach to the Ethereum ecosystem, particularly his strong opposition to Web3. The prolonged shelving of Hester Peirce’s “Token Safe Harbor” proposal has severely hindered Web3’s development. Therefore, replacing Gensler may not have much impact on Bitcoin, but it could be beneficial for Web3.
If the United States wants to become a haven for Web3, the SEC’s attitude is more crucial than Wall Street’s. Only by allowing Web3 projects to use tokens for user incentives and governance in a natural and reasonable way, while also implementing effective regulation and cracking down on fraudsters, can Web3 have a longer growth period to develop real business flywheels. Only then can the industry truly break free from the cycle of extreme ups and downs.
I’m not sure how deeply Trump understands this issue, but it seems unlikely that Kamala Harris will go in this direction. The more someone believes they represent the forward march of history, the more they tend to disregard personal freedoms and rights. Therefore, this U.S. election is indeed crucial for the Web3 industry. Let’s wait and see.
Follow us
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain
Telegram: https://t.me/wublockchainenglish
Comments
Post a Comment