A reader left the following comment at the end of the article:

“I have always firmly believed in Ethereum because it represents my values to some extent, but I have a question that I can't figure out: it is completely understandable that Vitalik doesn't pump the price and the Ethereum Foundation doesn't market, but since Vitalik wants to gradually withdraw, why does the Ethereum Foundation choose to sell Ethereum instead of directly sending it into a black hole?”

Let me first share my opinion on why the Ethereum Foundation does not directly send Ethereum into a black hole.

On this point, I still tend to believe in the ETH Foundation's general explanation:

The Ethereum Foundation needs funds every year to maintain its operations, support project development, fund project progress, and so on.

This annual expenditure has historically not been small, and in recent years has reached around one hundred million dollars annually.

So overall, I still believe that their main purpose for selling is to accumulate funds for future operations.

Even though sending this money to a black hole address could benefit all holders, I still prefer that they sell this money into US dollars to lead Ethereum's updates and iterations.

So I can understand their selling behavior.

As for whether their money has been effectively utilized or not, I cannot say. I choose to believe in Vitalik. I choose to believe that as long as he sticks to his values, even if he makes mistakes along the way, he will eventually correct himself.

The criticism online is mainly about the Foundation selling during a downturn in the market, which further depressed the price; I don't feel as strongly about this. Because if the Foundation really does not pay attention to the price and market, their actions also make sense.

I strongly agree with Vitalik’s stance on not pumping the price.

I think price is important, but pumping is purely a short-term act that can seriously damage long-term interests.

I believe that what Vitalik has done in the past is basically beneficial for Ethereum in the long run, and this benefit will eventually reflect in the price, so we should not harm long-term interests for short-term temptations.

It’s not just that, as the founder of a non-profit organization, he should refuse such pumping behavior; even as the head of a profit-making company, I believe he should still do so—focusing on things that he believes are good for the long-term interests of the company is the right path.

After Cook took over Apple, from September 2012 to April 2013, he faced fierce criticism from Wall Street. Wall Street criticized him for not launching a cheap phone to capture more market share and make more profit and harshly “taught” him with action—Apple was sold off/shorted, leading to a nearly 50% drop in stock price.

Faced with such immense pressure, Cook was uncompromising and stated in interviews: I am very good at blocking out noise.

He completely ignored the Wall Street criticism and was not swayed by short-term stock price performance, focusing instead on Apple's previous path and high-quality strategy.

Subsequent developments proven Wall Street's short-sightedness, the market's irrationality, and Cook's foresight.

Regarding the Ethereum Foundation not marketing, my understanding is slightly different.

First of all, the marketing I understand is not about pyramid schemes, but rather about fully objective and efficient communication of Ethereum's characteristics, features, and reasons for eventual good performance.

So, I think it is very good and necessary for the Ethereum Foundation to engage in such marketing.

However, in previous articles, I wrote that I originally thought marketing was something the Foundation should do, but later saw that they have clearly stated that they would not engage in this, and I realized my earlier understanding was incorrect. So I am quite disappointed.

Is this approach good or not?

To be honest, I don't know.

At this point, I will think in reverse (this is a method that Mr. Munger often emphasizes, and I find it very effective):

If the Ethereum Foundation completely does not market, and completely transitions from a “leader” to a “node,” I reckon it won't be worse than Bitcoin's CORE team.

So how has Bitcoin's CORE team performed over the years?

Many people are very dissatisfied with them, and they have also faced plenty of criticism.

But how has Bitcoin's technological iteration and update been?

Objectively, it's been okay.

So I estimate that the worst-case scenario is that Ethereum's future technological progress may not be as ideal or as fast, but it won't face significant operational risks.

In fact, I believe that the Ethereum Foundation's performance will be stronger than that of the CORE team.

So thinking this way, I feel it can be accepted.

We can also think from another aspect:

What would happen to Ethereum in the future if the Ethereum Foundation not only doesn't market but also loses technical updating capabilities, or even completely disappears?

I would also ask in return, assuming Ethereum never makes any progresses again, how would its strongest moat of decentralization and resistance to censorship and ecosystem building compare to other smart contract public chains?

Among the current smart contract public chains, which one is more decentralized and resistant to censorship than Ethereum?

I can't find one.

Among the current smart contract public chains, which one can surpass Ethereum in ecosystem building?

I also can't see one right now.

While the crypto ecosystem debates these issues, recently BlackRock submitted a new application to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to issue a tokenized asset worth $6.1 billion.

They chose Ethereum again.

This is the invisible advantage brought about by the moat.

I have also thought about whether Ethereum could support future new technologies if it made no progress at all.

A recent case has given me hope.

This case is zero-knowledge proof.

A new layer two expansion has recently emerged, built on native zero-knowledge proof technology, still delegating security and settlement to Ethereum.

In fact, the current main Ethereum network’s level of support for zero-knowledge proof is not excellent, but why does this layer two expansion still choose Ethereum?

I believe it's still due to the main Ethereum network's architecture providing sufficient (though imperfect) support.

Can zero-knowledge proof technology be implemented this way, and can other new technologies be approached similarly in the future?

Building independent (layer two expansion) blockchains to implement new technology while entrusting security and settlement to the main network sounds likely.

I think this is highly feasible.

Now it’s hard to find a second smart contract public chain with all these above characteristics.

All my assumptions above are based on the worst-case scenario.

If these situations can function, then even better situations go without saying—just look at how many EIPs are in the queue.

“I have always firmly believed in Ethereum because it represents my values to some extent”

My consideration of this issue involves both personal values and realistic interests, but ultimately, I believe that the values I believe in will ultimately bring considerable benefits.

This value is also what I have repeatedly emphasized:

Humanity's future will definitely move toward a virtual world. In that virtual world, not only human activities are carried out, but also AI activities are conducted.

What kind of platform can support such a world?

Only a platform that is as decentralized and resistant to censorship as possible can achieve this.

Such a platform is the greatest common divisor of all forces and groups, something that cannot be destroyed or interfered with by any force or group, something that both devils and angels believe in and dare to use.

Of course, this does not mean that there will only be one layer one smart contract public chain in the future, but it does mean that there will definitely be one layer one smart contract public chain that will support the most important, core, and mainstream applications.

This kind of smart contract blockchain will surely bring the most controllable, stable, and expected benefits to its holders.

Of course, nothing can be zero-risk, so from an investment perspective, it is still necessary to combine reality for comprehensive consideration, which I have previously emphasized:

First, set aside at least 18 months of living expenses (of course, the more the better);

Secondly, make different types of asset allocations;

Finally, think clearly about every investment. If it completely fails, can you bear the consequences? If you can, go for it; if not, be cautious.

Once these questions are clear, there is basically nothing to worry about.

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。