David Hoffman

Which is, like, a huge trust assumption.

You don't know where that gold is.

You can't, like, kind of... You're kind of, like, trusting the peg or the ability to redeem from that.

But it's different from the way Ethereum works because you're trusting that custodian.

And the same thing happens with Bitcoin, right?

If you want to use RAPBTC in a DeFi protocol, you're trusting whoever's custodian that Bitcoin on the Bitcoin network and that...

They say that you could swap it back with them, but you're trusting that assumption.

Whereas with ETH, it's native to the network, and you don't have to trust anybody to do that.

And that's a huge difference, especially as the sums of money get larger and larger.

Yeah.

So like the core thesis of this essay is that like Ethereum has equal or superior monetary properties to Bitcoin and gold, particularly on the durability aspect of proof of stake versus proof of work versus Bitcoin.

And then on top of that, the word Carl Menger uses is carrying costs, right?

It's your cost to hold this in the future.

And like Ethereum has negative carrying costs because you're getting paid to hold it into the future.

Whereas with like gold or Bitcoin, you have to pay somebody to like custody your assets for you.

So that's right.

So the carrying cost is pretty expensive for those assets.

And then I actually think productive,

the productivity of Ethereum accelerates the time that you can converge on it because it creates this intrinsic value floor of the asset.

So kind of like back to the beginning of the conversation, the way people are valuing it today is they're looking at how many fees, the total amount of fees that the network is generating, and they're valuing it based on that.