The co-founder of the Capital Mechanism, Andrew Kang, intensified his criticism of the latest Ethereum investment case from Tom Lee with an unusually frank tirade on X, intertwining his refutation with a series of highly written statements and data-oriented claims. “The thesis of Tom Lee’s ETH is one of the most delayed combinations of financially illiterate arguments that I have seen from a well -known analyst for some time,” wrote Kang, before listing five pillars that he says of the comparison of Lee’s digital oil: (1) The institutions of Stablecoin & rwa;
Is Tom Lee’s Ethereum thesis delayed?
The central attack of Kang targets the idea that the increase in tokenization and the activity of the stablescoin should result in a capture of disproportionate costs for Ethereum. “Since 2020, the volumes of asset value in token and stable transaction have increased from 100 to 1000x … (but) the costs are practically at the same level as in 2020,” he said. He attributed the disconnection to “upgrades of the Ethereum network making the activity more effective”, the activity “towards other channels”, and the reality that “low -speed assets do not lead to much costs”. He distilled the point with a striking comparison: “Someone could tokensize an obligation of $ 100 million and if it is negotiated once every 2 years … A single USDT would generate more costs.”
Related reading
The capital partner of the mechanism pushed the competitive angle more. “Most costs will be captured by other blockchains with stronger commercial development teams”, he wrote, appointing “Solana, Arbitrum and Tempo” as considering “most of the first large victories”, and adding that “Tether takes care of two new attachment channels, plasma and stable”, explicitly intended for the road to the USDT volume to be counted in relation to a testimony.
Kang also rejected the framing of Lee’s “digital oil” as an analytically hollow. “Oil is a commodity … The real oil prices adjusted for inflation have been negotiated in the same range for more than a century with periodic peaks that come back … I agree that ETH could be considered as a commodity, but it is not optimistic,” he wrote.
It extended the analogy of the range directly to the graphic of Ether: “By objectively looking at this graph, the strongest observation is that Ethereum is in a multi -year beach … We recently exploited the top of the range, not having resistance to resistance … I would not reduce the possibility of a much longer range from $ 1,000 to $ 1,000.” Regarding the relative performance, he added: “Long -term ETH / BTC is indeed in a multi -year range, but the last years have been mainly dictated by a downward trend … The Ethereum narrative is saturated and the fundamentals do not justify the growth of the evaluation.”
Related reading
On the institutions, Kang argued that the premises of Lee – that banks and large companies will accumulate and I will perform ETH to secure tokenization networks or as operational capital – includes the behavior of the treasury and value on the scale of value. “Have the big banks … have they still bought ETH from their balance sheet?” No.
Kang’s thread resulted in a scouring evaluation of Ethereum prices dynamics: “Ethereum’s evaluation comes mainly from financial illiteracy … (which) can create a decent market capitalization … but valuation which can be derived from financial illiteracy is not infinite … Unless there is a major organizational change, it is probably intended for the indefinite underperformance.
On the other hand, Lee’s latest prospects, on the other hand, focused on the adequacy of Ethereum for the Wall Street tokenization and its role as “neutral channel”, with public targets grouped from around $ 10,000 to $ 12,000 by the end of 2025 and up to $ 62,500 in a super favorable cycle.
At the time of publication, ETH exchanged nearly $ 4,000.
Star image created with dall.e, tradingView.com graphic
(tagstotranslate) ETH (T) ETH news
Source link
