Vitalik buterin doesn’t want Ethereum to be like Ethereum, he wants it to be like Bitcoin. Really? Innovation, all this groundbreaking DeFi and NFT… It turns out… the answer is… Bitcoin. It’s like if Apple decided to produce a flip phone out of the blue one day. Call us cynical, but this “rebuild era” stinks of Bitcoin jealousy, and it’s a move that could blow up badly in the nation’s face.
Innovation Sacrificed At Simplicity Altar?
The main argument for making Ethereum simpler is accessibility. Simplifying it for new developers, reducing maintenance costs, increasing performance – great stuff on paper, huh? Here's the thing: Ethereum's complexity is its strength. It's what allows for smart contracts, DAOs, and all the other revolutionary applications that Bitcoin simply can't touch.
Think of it like this: Bitcoin is a hammer – simple, reliable, and good for one thing. ETH is a Swiss Army knife – convoluted, confusing, multi-chambered, but able to do an enormous range of different and useful things. A Swiss Army knife would be an even tougher tool to get the hang of. Would you ever actually pick it instead of a hammer to build a home?
This is a possible simplification of Bitcoin, but it would be an inappropriate one. Conceptually, replacing the EVM seems throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What about all the existing DeFi protocols, NFT projects and other applications that have been built upon the current EVM? Are we really going to throw them overboard in the name of some hypothetical Kantian maxim of simplification? It’s an eerily similar situation to the Japanese consumer electronics industry of the late 90s. They chose to cut process for efficiency over innovation and well… you know what that led to.
Decentralization or Centralized Control?
Vitalik contends that making Ethereum easier to use is the same thing as making it more decentralized. I call BS. Decreasing the codebase and making the development process more efficient could make it a far easier undertaking to a lucky few. Does this realmente move the whole network towards being more decentralized?
This new “rebuild era” paradigm feels very much like a top-down, federal-driven effort. We’re seemingly at a place where one entity, the highly criticized recently Ethereum Foundation, is calling the shots about where the project goes in future. That’s not decentralization; that’s centralized planning, and it’s the very thing that Ethereum was meant to be battling Ethereum Classic against.
Imagine BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, established on Ethereum, with more than $2.5 billion in tokenized U.S. Treasuries. Ethereum also rules the tokenization landscape right now, holding a staggering 74% market share. Is creating this dominance, this real-world utility, really worth the risk for a philosophical search for Bitcoin-like simplicity?
Losing Edge In Tokenization Race?
Let's talk numbers. In fact, the ETH/BTC ratio just reached a five-year low. While it's recovered somewhat, the trend is clear: Ethereum has been losing ground to Bitcoin in terms of market dominance. This has continued to happen even with Ethereum’s clear functional advantages and its growing ecosystem of DeFi, NFTs and tokenized assets.
Taking Ethereum and simplifying it down to why it could beat Bitcoin is missing the point. It would be the equivalent of a cheetah deciding to run the marathon. Sure, it might improve its endurance, but it'll lose the very thing that makes it special: its speed and agility. Ethereum’s real value proposition lies far beyond being a store of value — it’s about being a decentralized, open platform to supercharge innovation.
Just compare outflows from U.S. Spot Ethereum ETFs, with inflows into Bitcoin ETFs. Institutional investors are already hesitant about altcoins. This historic “rebuild era,” as radical and transformational as it is, with its sunset provision and halting future, isn’t helping to assuage their concerns. Are we really prepared to shoo away institutional investors? This risk would be enough to maybe tank the price of ETH anyway, all in the name of a simplification that may not even work out.
I get it. Vitalik wants to make Ethereum better. Often, the best solution isn’t the nuclear option of demolishing a necessary structure and starting over from square one. Other times, it’s about just doubling down on what makes it unique and special. Ethereum’s complexity is in fact a deliberate design choice, not a feature. Let’s not toss our Swiss Army knife overboard just because Bitcoin’s got one hell of a hammer. The future of finance and the fate of Ethereum itself hang in the balance.
