Ethereum's core value lies in its infrastructure, not its monetary premium. Its valuation should reflect usage, revenue, and value capture, rather than simply being compared to gold or global reserve assets. I recently read an article whose core argument was that if the US Clarity Act is passed, Ethereum will be the biggest winner. This is because ETH might become the only asset under the US regulatory framework that simultaneously possesses the attributes of a "decentralized digital commodity" and a "programmable smart contract platform." Therefore, ETH's valuation framework should shift from a network revenue logic to a monetary premium logic similar to BTC, gold, or even sovereign reserve assets. I find this judgment insightful, but the conclusion may be overly ambitious. I'm not pessimistic about ETH, nor am I denying the positive impact of Clarity on ETH. On the contrary, regulatory clarity is definitely a significant positive for ETH. It will reduce institutional compliance concerns when allocating ETH and will also help further develop businesses such as ETFs, custody, staking, institutional DeFi, RWA, and on-chain settlement. However, regulatory clarity does not equate to a monetary premium. Clarity may address ETH's "regulatory discount" issue, rather than automatically opening up valuation space for ETH like gold, real estate, or global reserve assets. These two issues need to be considered separately. First, the market hasn't fully embraced this valuation logic. If ETH were truly seen as "programmable gold" or a "productive monetary asset," its valuation should be closer to BTC's. But that's not the case. The market still looks at several specific things when evaluating ETH: Ethereum mainnet revenue; DeFi activity; whether stablecoins and RWAs are primarily deposited within the Ethereum ecosystem; the value return from L2 to L1; ETH staking yields; inflows into the ETH ETF; and competition from ecosystems like Solana, BNB Chain, and Base. These are essentially valuation logics for network assets, platform assets, and ecosystem assets. BTC is different. BTC has no cash flow, no application ecosystem, and doesn't need to discuss network revenue. Its logic is simple: 21 million coins, non-sovereign, censorship resistant, digital gold. People may disagree with this logic, but it is indeed simple, clear, and easy to disseminate. ETH's logic is far more complex. ETH is gas, collateral, DeFi collateral, L2 settlement asset, and infrastructure asset for institutional on-chain finance. Multiple functions are a good thing, but currency premiums often require a simplified narrative. Complexity is beneficial for ecosystem development, but it doesn't necessarily contribute to forming a currency premium similar to gold and BTC.Second, legal classification is merely an entry ticket, not a valuation anchor. The original text makes a crucial leap: because ETH might be legally recognized as a decentralized digital commodity, it should therefore enter the valuation framework of Tier 1 currency premium assets. I believe this cannot be simply deduced. Legal classification addresses whether institutions can legally hold, trade, custody, and develop related products. Currency premium addresses whether the global market is willing to use it as a long-term wealth store. These are two separate issues. Gold has a currency premium not because a particular law classifies it, but because thousands of years of historical consensus, physical scarcity, central bank reserve demand, and geopolitical hedging attributes have collectively formed a massive consensus. BTC has a currency premium not because it can be used for smart contracts, but because it is simple, pure, and resembles "digital gold." For ETH to gain a currency premium, it cannot rely solely on regulatory classification. It also needs to prove that global wealth is willing to treat ETH as a long-term store of value, not just as an important on-chain financial infrastructure asset. This is a significant step. Third, the development of DeFi may actually weaken ETH's status as the "sole interest-bearing asset." The original text emphasizes one of ETH's advantages: ETH can be staked to earn interest, while BTC and gold cannot. This viewpoint has some merit today, but it may change a few years from now. With the development of DeFi and RWA, many assets will be tokenized in the future. Gold, government bonds, money market funds, real estate funds, income rights, commodities, and stock ETFs may all enter the on-chain financial system in token form. Once these assets are on-chain, they will also gain new functions: they can be used as collateral; they can be lent; they can be used for market making; they can be combined into structured yield products; they can be included in DeFi protocols; and they can form on-chain funding loops with stablecoins. Therefore, in the future, it won't be just ETH that can "earn interest." Tokenized gold, if integrated into DeFi, may also generate on-chain returns. Tokenized government bonds and money market funds inherently have underlying returns. Tokenized real estate funds and other RWAs can also generate cash flow. At that time, the question will no longer be "ETH can earn interest, but gold cannot." The real question will become: what is a better collateral? Which has lower volatility? Which has a clearer source of returns? Which has higher regulatory acceptance? Which is better suited for institutional balance sheets? Which is more likely to be held by global funds for the long term? From this perspective, ETH is not necessarily more advantageous than tokenized gold, tokenized government bonds, or tokenized money market funds.ETH staking rewards come from cybersecurity mechanisms, not traditional risk-free returns. They carry protocol risk, validator risk, slashing risk, liquidity staking protocol risk, regulatory risk, and price volatility risk. For institutions, ETH staking is certainly a useful feature, but it shouldn't be directly interpreted as "better gold." Fourth, regarding the issue of currency premiums, it's likely primarily a matter of BTC, gold, and tokenized gold. I tend to believe that currency premiums mainly belong to BTC, gold, and the potential future emergence of tokenized gold. BTC's position is clear: digital gold. Gold's position is also clear: the most important non-sovereign store of value asset in the traditional world. Tokenized gold, if it develops, could be very interesting. It inherits the historical credit of gold while gaining on-chain liquidity, composability, and collateralizability. In this case, the currency premium of gold may not necessarily flow to ETH; instead, it may be further amplified by tokenized gold. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for ETH, because these tokenized assets also require on-chain infrastructure and may be issued, traded, and collateralized on Ethereum or Ethereum L2. However, this means that ETH is more like an infrastructure asset than an ultimate currency premium asset. Infrastructure is certainly valuable. However, infrastructure valuation should typically be based on usage, revenue, network effects, and value capture, rather than direct comparisons to the total market capitalization of gold, real estate currency premiums, or global reserve asset pools. Fifth, Ethereum's value capture problem is not yet fully resolved. The original article argued that CLARITY would differentiate ETH from other smart contract platforms because other L1 platforms might enter the Tier 2 valuation system, while ETH would remain in Tier 1. This judgment also needs caution. The real world doesn't choose blockchains solely based on US regulatory classifications. Different countries, assets, and institutions choose underlying networks based on many factors: cost; performance; compliance interfaces; KYC/AML requirements; local regulatory attitudes; ecosystem resources; liquidity; asset issuer and service provider relationships; and whether a permissioned environment is required. Many RWAs, stablecoins, and payment scenarios may not choose the Ethereum mainnet. They might choose L2, application chains, consortium blockchains, or other L1 platforms that better suit local regulations and business needs. More importantly, even if many businesses occur within the Ethereum ecosystem, it doesn't necessarily mean ETH captures value proportionally. Over the past few years, we have seen that L2 has expanded the Ethereum ecosystem, but it has also raised a question: After L2 has grown so much, how much of its value has actually flowed back into ETH?If a large number of transactions occur at L2, fees continue to decrease, and the application layer and L2 itself capture more user value, while the ETH mainnet only assumes the role of final settlement and security, then ETH's value capture capability still needs to be proven. It's not accurate to say that as the Ethereum ecosystem grows, ETH will necessarily become more valuable. This is why I believe ETH valuation should return to specific issues such as network revenue, settlement needs, staking needs, staking rewards, and the return of ecosystem value. Sixth, institutional use of Ethereum does not necessarily mean institutions will buy ETH. Another issue that needs to be distinguished is that institutional entry into on-chain finance does not necessarily mean that institutions will allocate ETH as a core asset. Institutions may: use the Ethereum network; use Ethereum L2; issue tokenized funds; use stablecoins for settlement; use on-chain custody and compliant transfer tools; use DeFi or permissioned DeFi; and indirectly access on-chain finance through service providers. But this does not mean they must buy large amounts of ETH. Similarly, enterprises using cloud services extensively do not necessarily buy stock in cloud service companies. Institutions using the infrastructure of a particular blockchain do not necessarily allocate a long-term stake in the underlying token. For ETH to transform from a "network being used" into a "long-term asset," a clear value capture mechanism is needed. If this mechanism is unclear, the market will still price ETH based on revenue, fees, staking rewards, and ecosystem growth. Seventh, the grand narrative of Web3 can no longer sustain valuations in the previous cycle; the market was willing to value grand narratives. World computers, the internet of value, global settlement layers, and decentralized finance foundations—these narratives are powerful. Ethereum is certainly one of the most important representatives. But the market has changed. Investors are increasingly asking: 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 business loop? This is what we've repeatedly emphasized over the past few years: Web3 cannot remain merely a vision; ultimately, it must return to the essence of value and the most basic business logic. Can it generate revenue? Can it provide a better user experience? Can it create real economic growth? If these questions cannot be answered, even the grandest narrative will struggle to sustain valuations in the long run. The same applies to ETH.It is certainly one of the most important Web3 infrastructures, but to achieve a higher valuation, the market may need to see: a resurgence of DeFi; a recovery in mainnet revenue; a clearer return of value from L2 to L1; stablecoins and RWA forming genuine settlement demand within the Ethereum system; a continued expansion of demand for ETH as collateral; and institutions not just using Ethereum, but genuinely needing to hold ETH. These are not things that a single bill can accomplish automatically. VIII. The true significance of CLARITY may be reducing ETH's regulatory discount. Therefore, I prefer to understand CLARITY's impact on ETH as reducing the regulatory discount, rather than opening up trillions of dollars in revaluation space for currency premiums. In the past, ETH did indeed face regulatory uncertainty. If US regulators more clearly acknowledge ETH's commodity attributes, it would be a significant positive for ETH. But this is a transformation from a "network asset with regulatory tail risks" to a "network asset with clearer regulation." This is already very important. However, it does not mean that ETH automatically becomes a substitute for gold, BTC, or global reserve assets. If the market ultimately uses network revenue, staking yields, L2 value return, DeFi activity, RWA settlement volume, and institutional usage to evaluate ETH, then ETH's valuation will still be constrained by fundamentals. This isn't a bad thing. Good infrastructure assets should inherently have high value. However, it's not the same as a currency premium asset. IX. My Positioning of ETH I still believe ETH is one of the most important assets in the digital asset industry. Its long-term value comes from several aspects: First, it is the most important open smart contract network. Second, it is an important settlement layer for DeFi, stablecoins, RWA, and on-chain finance. Third, it is one of the most regulatory-defensible decentralized infrastructures. Fourth, it has accumulated long-term recognition from developers, applications, assets, and institutions. Fifth, once Web3 truly enters large-scale commercial applications, it may become a very important underlying trust and settlement asset. But these values are more like infrastructure value, network value, ecosystem value, and collateral value. It can enjoy certain scarcity premiums, regulatory clarity premiums, and network effect premiums, but it may not necessarily enjoy the pure monetary premiums of BTC or gold. ETH has high long-term value, but this shouldn't be used to justify a misjudgment of its valuation framework. X. Conclusion: Positive for ETH, but don't value ETH like gold. My core judgment on this matter is simple: CLARITY is positive for ETH, but it doesn't mean ETH can be valued like gold. Regulatory clarity is a good thing, but it's not a monetary premium. ETH is a very important on-chain financial infrastructure asset, but it doesn't necessarily become the ultimate store of global wealth.In the future, those truly enjoying a currency premium will likely remain primarily BTC, gold, and tokenized gold and other high-credit-value assets. ETH is more likely to be one of the core infrastructures for the on-chaining, circulation, collateralization, settlement, and combination of these assets. This position is already important enough; there's no need to force ETH to be "better gold." A more robust valuation framework for ETH would likely be: regulatory clarity leading to discount correction; institutional entry driving increased demand; DeFi, RWA, stablecoins, and L2 ecosystems determining network usage; network revenue, collateral demand, and value return determining the long-term valuation center; and currency premiums can be considered as an upside scenario, but not as a fundamental assumption. This is my main reservation regarding this ETH revaluation logic. The Web3 industry often easily extrapolates a genuine positive development into a massive valuation story. This industry needs imagination, but even more so, it needs to return to fundamental questions: What problem does this asset actually solve? Who will hold it long-term? What are the returns and risks of holding it? Where does its value actually come from? If the ecosystem develops, will the value truly return to the token? Without clarifying these questions, relying solely on regulatory classification will hardly support a genuine leap in valuation. [Nine Lives Commune]