Hash Global Founder: Why Did I Also Choose to Liquidate All My ETH?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Hash Global Founder: Why Did I Also Choose to Liquidate All My ETH?
While the CLARITY Act’s regulatory clarity may indeed repair ETH’s compliance discount, it does not equate to conferring a monetary premium akin to that of gold or BTC.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: HashGlobal KK, Founder of Hash Global
Translated by: Jiahuan, ChainCatcher
The author has fully liquidated all ETH holdings. This article was published on May 24.
Recently, I read an article arguing that if the U.S. CLARITY Act passes, Ethereum will be the biggest winner.
Its core claim is that ETH may become the only asset under the U.S. regulatory framework possessing both “decentralized digital commodity” and “programmable smart contract platform” attributes. Therefore, ETH’s valuation framework should shift from network revenue logic toward a monetary premium logic akin to BTC, gold, or even sovereign reserve assets.
I find this perspective highly insightful—but its conclusion may overextend.
This is not to say I am bearish on ETH or deny CLARITY’s upside.
On the contrary, regulatory clarity is undoubtedly a major tailwind for ETH. It would reduce compliance concerns for institutional ETH allocation and further advance ETFs, custody services, staking, institutional DeFi, RWA, and on-chain settlement businesses.
However, regulatory clarity does not equate to monetary premium.
CLARITY may resolve ETH’s “regulatory discount,” but it won’t automatically unlock valuation space tied to gold, real estate, or global reserve assets.
These are two fundamentally distinct issues—and must be analyzed separately.
1. The market hasn’t bought into this logic yet
If ETH were truly perceived by the market as “programmable gold” or a “yield-bearing monetary asset,” its valuation should closely resemble BTC’s.
But that is not the case.
When evaluating ETH, the market still focuses on concrete metrics:
- Ethereum mainnet revenue;
- DeFi activity;
- Whether stablecoins and RWAs settle primarily within the Ethereum ecosystem;
- Value flow from L2s back to L1;
- ETH staking yield;
- Inflows into ETH ETFs;
- Competition from ecosystems such as Solana, BNB Chain, and Base.
These reflect valuation logic for network assets, platform assets, and ecosystem assets.
BTC is different. It has no cash flow, no application ecosystem, and no need to discuss network revenue. Its logic is simple: 21 million supply cap, non-sovereign, censorship-resistant, digital gold. People may disagree with this narrative—but it is simple, clear, and easily communicable.
ETH’s narrative is far more complex. ETH serves as gas fee, staking asset, DeFi collateral, L2 settlement asset, and infrastructure for institutional on-chain finance. While multifunctionality is an advantage, monetary premium typically requires an extremely minimal, focused narrative.
Complexity benefits ecosystem development—but doesn’t necessarily foster monetary premium like gold or BTC.
2. Legal classification is just a ticket to enter
The original article makes a critical leap: because ETH may be legally recognized as a decentralized digital commodity, it should therefore enter the valuation framework of top-tier monetary premium assets.
I believe this inference is flawed.
Legal classification addresses questions like: Can institutions hold it compliantly? Trade it compliantly? Custody it compliantly? Develop related products compliantly?
Monetary premium addresses a different question: Are global markets willing to hold it as a long-term store of value?
These are two distinct questions.
Gold commands monetary premium—not because any single law classifies it as such—but due to millennia-old consensus, physical scarcity, central bank reserve demand, and geopolitical safe-haven properties collectively forging massive consensus.
BTC commands monetary premium—not because it executes smart contracts—but because it is sufficiently simple, pure, and resembles “digital gold.”
For ETH to earn monetary premium, regulatory classification alone is insufficient. It must also demonstrate that global capital is willing to hold ETH as a long-term store of value—not merely as critical on-chain financial infrastructure.
A substantial gap remains between these two states.
3. DeFi will erode ETH’s “sole yield-bearing” narrative
The original article highlights one ETH advantage: ETH can generate yield via staking, whereas BTC and gold cannot.
While this holds some truth today, the situation may change significantly in the coming years.
As DeFi and RWA mature, many assets will become tokenized. Gold, Treasuries, money market funds, real estate funds, revenue rights, commodities, and stock ETFs can all enter the on-chain financial system as tokens.
Once tokenized, these assets gain new capabilities:
- Use as collateral;
- Borrowing and lending;
- Market making;
- Composition into structured yield products;
- Integration with DeFi protocols;
- Closed-loop on-chain fund flows with stablecoins.
Thus, ETH will no longer be the sole “yield-bearing” asset.
Tokenized gold integrated with DeFi can also generate on-chain yield. Tokenized Treasuries and money market funds inherently carry baseline yields. Tokenized real estate funds and other RWAs can also generate cash flows.
At that point, the question ceases to be “ETH yields, gold doesn’t.”
Instead, the real questions become: Who is better collateral? Who exhibits lower volatility? Whose yield sources are clearer? Who enjoys higher regulatory recognition? Who fits better on institutional balance sheets? Who is easier for global capital to hold long-term?
From this perspective, ETH may hold no advantage over tokenized gold, tokenized Treasuries, or tokenized money market funds.
ETH’s staking yield stems from security mechanisms—not traditional risk-free returns. It carries protocol risk, validator risk, slashing risk, liquid staking protocol risk, regulatory risk, and price volatility risk.
To institutions, ETH staking is certainly a valuable feature—but should not be conflated directly with “superiority over gold.”
4. Monetary premium belongs to BTC, gold, and potentially tokenized gold
I lean toward believing future monetary premium will reside primarily with BTC, gold, and potentially tokenized gold.
BTC’s positioning is clear: digital gold.
Gold’s positioning is equally clear: the most important non-sovereign store of value in the traditional world.
If tokenized gold gains traction, the scenario could become highly compelling. It would inherit gold’s historical credibility while gaining on-chain liquidity, composability, and collateral utility. In such a case, gold’s monetary premium wouldn’t necessarily flow to ETH—in fact, it might strengthen further due to tokenization.
That isn’t necessarily bad for ETH. These tokenized assets still require on-chain infrastructure—and can be issued, traded, and pledged on Ethereum or Ethereum L2s.
Yet this implies ETH functions more as infrastructure—rather than the ultimate monetary premium asset.
Infrastructure is undoubtedly valuable. But infrastructure valuation typically reverts to usage metrics, revenue, network effects, and value capture—not direct analogies to gold’s market cap, real estate’s monetary premium, or global reserve asset pools.
5. Ethereum’s value capture remains unresolved
The original article argues CLARITY will widen the valuation gap between ETH and other smart contract platforms—pushing other L1s into a second-tier valuation bracket while ETH remains first-tier.
This judgment likewise warrants caution.
The real world won’t choose blockchains solely based on U.S. regulatory classification.
Different countries, assets, and institutions select underlying networks based on multiple factors:
- Cost;
- Performance;
- Compliance interfaces;
- KYC/AML requirements;
- Local regulatory attitudes;
- Ecosystem resources;
- Liquidity;
- Relationships with asset issuers and service providers;
- Need for permissioned environments.
Many RWA, stablecoin, and payment use cases may not choose Ethereum mainnet. They may instead opt for L2s, appchains, consortium chains, or other L1s better aligned with local regulations and business needs.
More importantly, even heavy activity within the Ethereum ecosystem doesn’t guarantee proportional value capture by ETH.
As we’ve observed in recent years, while L2s expand the Ethereum ecosystem, they raise a critical question: once L2s scale, how much value actually flows back to ETH?
If substantial transaction volume migrates to ever-cheaper L2s—and application layers and L2s themselves capture more user value—while ETH mainnet handles only final settlement and security, ETH’s value capture capability remains unproven.
We cannot assume Ethereum ecosystem growth automatically translates into ETH appreciation.
That’s why I believe ETH valuation must revert to concrete issues: network revenue, settlement demand, collateral demand, staking yield, and ecosystem value flow.
6. Using Ethereum ≠ Buying ETH
Another distinction must be made: institutional entry into on-chain finance doesn’t mean they’ll allocate ETH as a core asset.
Institutions may:
- Use the Ethereum network;
- Use Ethereum L2s;
- Issue tokenized funds;
- Settle using stablecoins;
- Use on-chain custody and compliant transfer tools;
- Use DeFi or permissioned DeFi;
- Access on-chain finance indirectly via service providers.
None of these require large-scale ETH purchases.
Just as enterprises heavily using cloud services don’t necessarily buy cloud providers’ stocks, institutions using blockchain infrastructure don’t need to hold the underlying token long-term.
For ETH to transition from “a network being used” to “an asset being held long-term,” it requires a clear value capture mechanism.
If such a mechanism remains unclear, the market will continue assessing ETH based on revenue, fees, staking yield, and ecosystem growth.
7. Grand narratives no longer support valuations
In the last cycle, the market priced in grand narratives.
“World computer,” “internet of value,” “global settlement layer,” “foundation of decentralized finance”—these narratives carried immense weight. Ethereum was unquestionably their most prominent embodiment.
But the market has changed.
Investors increasingly ask: Where is the revenue? Where are the users? Where is the value capture? Where is the real demand? Where is the regulatory path? Where is the closed commercial logic?
As we’ve repeatedly stressed in recent years, Web3 cannot remain purely aspirational—it must ultimately return to fundamental value and basic commercial logic.
Can it generate profit? Does it deliver superior user experience? Does it create genuine economic value? If these questions remain unanswered, even the grandest narratives struggle to sustain valuations long-term.
The same applies to ETH.
While it is certainly among the most critical Web3 infrastructures, achieving higher valuations may require the market to see:
- Renewed DeFi growth;
- Recovery of mainnet revenue;
- Clearer value flow from L2s to L1;
- Authentic settlement demand for stablecoins and RWAs within the Ethereum ecosystem;
- Sustained growth in ETH collateral demand;
- Institutions not just using Ethereum—but genuinely needing to hold ETH.
None of these can be automatically achieved through a single piece of legislation.
8. CLARITY’s true significance is repairing the regulatory discount
Therefore, I view CLARITY’s impact on ETH as reducing the regulatory discount—not unlocking multi-trillion-dollar monetary premium revaluation potential.
ETH has indeed faced regulatory uncertainty in the past. Clearer U.S. regulatory acknowledgment of ETH’s commodity status would be a major positive.
However, this would shift ETH from “a network asset with regulatory tail risk” to “a network asset with clearer regulation.”
That is already profoundly significant.
But it does not mean ETH will automatically become a substitute for gold, BTC, or global reserve assets.
If the market continues evaluating ETH based on network revenue, staking yield, L2 value flow, DeFi activity, RWA settlement volume, and institutional usage, then ETH’s valuation will remain tethered to fundamentals.
That isn’t necessarily negative. Excellent infrastructure assets deserve high valuations—but they aren’t equivalent to monetary premium assets.
9. My stance on ETH
I still believe ETH is among the most important assets in the digital asset industry.
Its long-term value derives from several dimensions: First, it is the most important open smart contract network.
Second, it serves as the key settlement layer for DeFi, stablecoins, RWAs, and on-chain finance.
Third, from a regulatory standpoint, it is among the most defensible decentralized infrastructures.
Fourth, it has accumulated longstanding recognition from developers, applications, assets, and institutions.
Fifth, as Web3 enters mass commercial adoption, it may become an exceptionally critical underlying trust and settlement asset.
Yet these values resemble infrastructure value, network value, ecosystem value, and collateral value.
It may enjoy scarcity premiums, regulatory clarity premiums, and network effect premiums—but not necessarily the pure monetary premium enjoyed by BTC or gold.
ETH possesses substantial long-term value—but its valuation framework shouldn’t be erroneously substituted.
10. CLARITY helps ETH—but don’t value ETH like gold
My core assessment of this matter is straightforward:
CLARITY helps ETH—but that doesn’t mean ETH should be valued like gold.
Regulatory clarity is beneficial—but it is not synonymous with monetary premium.
ETH is an extremely important on-chain financial infrastructure asset—but it won’t necessarily become the ultimate global store of wealth.
Going forward, the assets truly enjoying monetary premium will likely remain primarily BTC, gold, and potentially tokenized gold and other high-credit stores of value. ETH is more likely to serve as the core infrastructure enabling these assets’ on-chain issuance, circulation, pledging, settlement, and composition.
This role is already critically important—there’s no need to force ETH into a “superior-to-gold” narrative.
A more robust ETH valuation framework might be: Regulatory clarity drives discount repair; Institutional entry boosts demand; DeFi, RWA, stablecoin, and L2 ecosystems determine network usage; Network revenue, collateral demand, and value flow determine long-term valuation; Monetary premium can serve as an optimistic scenario—but shouldn’t be the base assumption.
This represents my primary reservation regarding ETH revaluation arguments.
The Web3 industry frequently extrapolates genuine positives into outsized valuation stories. While imagination holds value, returning to fundamental questions is more critical.
What real problem does this asset solve? Who will hold it long-term? What are the returns and risks of holding it? Where does its value truly originate? If the ecosystem grows, will value genuinely accrue to this token?
Without clear answers to these questions, regulatory classification alone will struggle to support a genuine valuation leap.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
KK
