The idea that "ETH is money" has become a rallying cry for many in the Ethereum community — especially among advocates of decentralized finance (DeFi) and digital asset maximalists. But as the ecosystem evolves, a growing ideological rift is emerging between Ethereum’s original developers and its most passionate believers. At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: What is Ethereum’s ultimate purpose?
This tension came to a head when Bankless, a prominent pro-Ethereum media outlet known for championing crypto-native values, declared once again: “ETH is money.” While many in the DeFi and retail investor communities cheered, the statement was met with sharp pushback — including from one of Ethereum’s core developers.
👉 Discover how Ethereum’s evolving role is shaping the future of digital value.
The Developer Pushback: “No OG Wanted ETH to Be Money”
Péter Szilágyi, a long-time leader within the Ethereum development team, responded bluntly on social media:
“ETH was never meant to be money. ETH exists to support a decentralized world computer — and yes, that gives it value. But no OG ever wanted ETH to be money. Bring forth the tar and feathers!”
His comment struck a nerve. The phrase "bring forth the tar and feathers" — historically referencing public shaming — was used ironically, acknowledging he expected backlash for challenging a widely held belief.
Szilágyi’s stance reflects a foundational philosophy among early Ethereum contributors: Ethereum was built as a platform for decentralized applications, not as a digital currency. In this view, ETH is a utility token — necessary for securing the network and paying for computation — rather than a store of value or medium of exchange like Bitcoin.
This perspective prioritizes protocol integrity, scalability, and long-term technical sustainability over short-term financialization.
Bankless Counters: “OG Intent Doesn’t Define Value”
In response, David Hoffman, co-founder of Bankless, dismissed the relevance of original intentions:
“We’ve had this conversation to death. What the OGs wanted doesn’t matter anymore. The market has decided. ETH is money — whether you like it or not.”
Ryan Adams, the other Bankless co-founder, added nuance:
“I respect Peter’s contributions, but I disagree. ETH has value. It’s scarce. It’s liquid. It secures a global financial system. That’s what money does.”
This argument hinges on emergent properties — the idea that an asset’s function isn’t determined by its creators’ vision, but by how it’s used in practice.
Today, millions use ETH for:
- Paying transaction fees
- Staking to earn yield
- Collateralizing loans in DeFi protocols
- Transferring value across borders
These behaviors mirror those of monetary assets. And with over $50 billion staked in Ethereum’s proof-of-stake system, ETH increasingly functions as both fuel and financial infrastructure.
👉 See how staking transforms digital assets into productive capital.
Community Consensus vs. Developer Vision
The divide isn’t just philosophical — it reflects real tensions in governance and ecosystem priorities.
As noted by crypto analyst @iamDCinvestor:
“The value proposition of most digital assets emerges from their usage, not their whitepaper promises. ETH is no exception.”
This echoes legal frameworks like the Howey Test, where whether an asset qualifies as a security depends on how it’s marketed and used — not its technical design.
Similarly, if ETH is treated like money by users, exchanges, and institutions, does the original intent of its creators still matter?
Mohamed Fouda, a respected blockchain engineer and researcher, offered a middle ground:
“Ethereum can succeed as a decentralized base layer even if ETH isn’t ‘money.’ But to secure that layer, ETH must have high value — which means behaving like money.”
In other words, even if ETH wasn’t designed to be money, it may need to function as one to ensure network security and economic viability.
The Bigger Picture: Ideals vs. Incentives
This debate also highlights a broader shift in Ethereum’s evolution:
- Early days (2015–2020): Focus on decentralization, censorship resistance, and smart contract innovation.
- Post-2020: Rise of DeFi, NFTs, and staking economies — turning ETH into a yield-generating asset.
- Present day: Tension between idealistic protocol development and market-driven financialization.
Critics argue that Vitalik Buterin and core devs have become too focused on abstract ideals — like scalability through rollups or soulbound tokens — while neglecting the needs of DeFi builders and users who rely on predictable economics.
Meanwhile, DeFi protocols depend on ETH’s stability and liquidity. If developer actions (e.g., EIP-1559 burning, proposed transaction fee reforms) reduce yield or inflation predictability, it threatens the foundation of lending markets, derivatives, and stablecoin systems.
So, Is ETH Money?
Let’s break it down using traditional monetary properties:
| Property | Does ETH Qualify? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Scarcity | ✅ | Capped effective supply due to fee burning |
| Durability | ✅ | Blockchain ensures permanence |
| Portability | ✅ | Transferable globally in seconds |
| Fungibility | ⚠️ | Mostly fungible; privacy concerns exist |
| Divisibility | ✅ | Up to 18 decimals |
| Acceptance | ⚠️ | Widely accepted in crypto; limited off-ramp usage |
By these metrics, ETH meets most criteria — though it falls short of full real-world adoption as everyday money.
Yet in the digital realm? It’s already one of the most liquid and trusted assets across Web3.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Can ETH ever replace traditional money?
A: Not in the near term. While ETH functions as digital money within crypto ecosystems, widespread off-chain adoption faces regulatory and volatility hurdles.
Q: Why do developers resist calling ETH money?
A: Many fear financialization could compromise decentralization. If ETH becomes too valuable as an asset, it might incentivize centralization (e.g., large staking pools controlling validation).
Q: Does calling ETH money change anything technically?
A: No — labels don’t alter code. But perception influences investment, regulation, and product development.
Q: Is ETH a better store of value than Bitcoin?
A: Bitcoin is currently more established as “digital gold.” However, ETH’s utility in DeFi gives it unique economic depth Bitcoin lacks.
Q: Could Ethereum become centralized due to staking?
A: There are risks — about 30% of ETH is staked, and much goes through services like Lido or Coinbase. This raises decentralization concerns, though efforts like solo staking and restaking aim to mitigate it.
👉 Explore how decentralization and yield coexist in next-gen crypto networks.
Conclusion: A Living Ecosystem Shaping Its Own Identity
The “ETH is money” debate isn’t just semantics — it’s a reflection of Ethereum’s maturation. Like any evolving technology, its meaning is shaped not just by creators, but by users.
While OG developers may not have intended ETH to be money, the market has赋予 it monetary qualities through use. And as long as people treat it as scarce, valuable, and usable capital — that reality will persist.
Ultimately, Ethereum may not need a single definition. It can be both:
- A protocol token securing a global computing layer
- And a monetary asset powering decentralized economies
The future won’t be decided by tweets or slogans — but by how builders, users, and validators continue to shape its role.
Keywords: Ethereum, ETH is money, ETH value, Ethereum debate, DeFi, cryptocurrency monetary policy, Ethereum staking, digital assets