Vitalik Buterin Puts Store of Value Above Ethereum Fee Burns

By Marcus Bennett

On November 8, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin said in an X post that Ethereum’s value should rest on its role as a store of value, not on burning transaction fees. His framing asks investors to judge the network by its durability, usable financial infrastructure and institutional relevance, not by a single measure of burned supply.

In the post, Buterin wrote that “it makes far more sense to view Ethereum as a store of value than as a fee-burning token.” He said EIP-1559, which burns part of transaction fees, should remain in place. A shortfall against new issuance would not, by itself, trouble him.

The Block’s data shows how far fee burning has retreated. About 1.48 million ETH burned in 2022, compared with roughly 19,200 ETH so far this year. The lower figure undercuts any assumption that current burns provide the network’s central investment support.

Why the fee-burn argument no longer leads

The “ultrasound money” thesis gained traction during the 2021 bull market. Investors broadly expected burns to reduce Ethereum’s supply and help support prices. Buterin’s concern is that most historical burns came from crypto-market activity, including NFT trading, and should decline in downturns.

Because those bursts depend on crypto-market activity, a lower burn rate during weaker markets says more about demand conditions than about Ethereum’s long-term capacity to secure and settle value. He cited network stability as especially important as artificial intelligence advances.

What does this change for Ethereum investors?

It changes where due diligence belongs. Investors now need to test the durability of the network, the quality of its financial infrastructure and the depth of its institutional use, rather than rely on burn arithmetic alone.

Buterin said the priority should be to build financial infrastructure that can be trusted over the long term. He identified decentralization, censorship resistance, privacy and security as core sources of value. For institutions, that framing makes network resilience and credible settlement infrastructure more important than a headline supply metric or a short-lived period of elevated transaction demand.

Growth in real-world asset tokenization could support this case by bringing external economic activity onto Ethereum. But he cautioned that stable financial transactions are unlikely to recreate the abrupt fee surges seen during the NFT boom. His argument therefore allows for lower burns without treating them as evidence of a weaker network.

The infrastructure work behind the thesis

A policy built around maximizing burns would need persistently high gas fees, which would raise transaction costs for ordinary users and limit the network’s accessibility. Expensive participation narrows who can use Ethereum. That runs against the network’s decentralization and censorship-resistance goals.

Buterin said the most important condition for the store-of-value thesis is Ethereum’s long-term survivability. He pointed to stronger defenses against quantum-computing attacks, privacy technologies and lightweight nodes as key development priorities. As Ethereum-based real-world asset tokenization expands, he expects more opportunities to use ETH as collateral.

The response was supportive. Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko agreed that fees should not be treated as the core product. Simon Dedic, founder of Moonrock Capital, said Ethereum’s store-of-value role could offer a compelling investment thesis for institutional investors.

The next test is whether Ethereum-based tokenization creates durable collateral and settlement demand, rather than another short-lived burst of fee-driven burns.