Comparing $ETH (network) and $AMZN (corporation) on PE ratios misses the point of crypto. Amazon can run without $AMZN stock. Ethereum cannot run without $ETH. ETH needs to be staked for the network to work. Higher Ethereum adoption means higher demand for ETH because anyone using Ethereum ends up needing it one way or another (as Vitalik says, 'users' also include Wall Street and others). That part is obvious. The bearish case is gas abstraction removing the need for end-users to acquire ETH. Fair criticism. Even then, companies still need to hold ETH to pay for their users. More usage still means more ETH demand. So the real focus is on creating more use cases for Ethereum itself: L2s, DeFi protocols, and especially tokenization. Tokenization has two stages, and only the second one is the explosive one. Right now, tokenized assets are offchain assets wrapped onchain. Settlement depends on issuers meeting liabilities across chains. $BUIDL on Ethereum is still Blackrock’s liability. If it gets hacked, they can reissue. As @samkazemian once wrote, Ethereum’s strong settlement guarantees matter most for assets without issuers. So at this stage, ETH’s deep security and censorship resistance matter less. The real shift happens when assets are issued onchain first instead of through legacy legal documents. Why would that happen? Lower legal overhead, global launch on day one, cleaner settlement… many reasons. But the world is not ready yet. If it does happen, ETH becomes an asset countries need to acquire. They would need to stake ETH and run nodes to secure the assets they issue. Is that near-term? Probably not. But we already have onchain-first native assets like $AAVE that depend directly on Ethereum’s security. Many more to come. This is why I don’t value ETH on revenue metrics alone.