Recently, I came across an interesting perspective: no matter how strong Ethereum as a public chain is or how perfect its ecosystem becomes, it doesn't necessarily mean that we should be bullish on ETH as an asset.

How should we understand this logic? Comparing it to the US dollar makes it clearer—USD is the most important circulating currency worldwide, extremely practical, but few people consider it a long-term investment asset. The same logic applies to Ethereum: the EVM standard has become an industry development standard, and the Ethereum network has built a complete infrastructure ecosystem—these are facts. But the question is, can these successes truly translate into scarcity and yield potential for the ETH token itself?

Looking at it from another angle, the success of a public chain project and the investment prospects of its native token are actually two completely different tracks. You can believe that the Ethereum ecosystem is impressive, while also concluding that "ETH as an asset might not be that valuable." These two ideas are not contradictory.

This raises an important question worth pondering: when evaluating crypto asset allocation, should we be more冷静 (calm and rational) in separating these two dimensions—one being "whether the public chain or project itself is successful," and the other being "whether I should buy its token." The former determines the ecosystem's prospects, while the latter truly impacts your wallet.