Post

I’m Cige. Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan recently raised an interesting point: the valuation framework for crypto assets is gradually evolving. Instead of relying primarily on market cap and narratives, investors are increasingly paying attention to on-chain fees, protocol revenue, and actual economic activity. I agree that this shift is happening—but I don’t think it fundamentally changes the way $BTC should be valued. Why? BTC is a different species. Revenue-based metrics make much more sense for assets like $ETH and DeFi protocols, because they can generate measurable fees and cash flow through real on-chain activity. $BTC , on the other hand, isn’t designed around generating protocol revenue. Its core investment thesis is built around scarcity, monetary properties, institutional demand, ETF flows, and its role as a potential digital store of value. So the crypto market may increasingly move toward fundamental, revenue-based valuation, but that doesn’t mean every crypto asset should be evaluated using the same framework. ETH and DeFi can be valued through economic activity and cash flow. BTC is primarily valued through scarcity, adoption, liquidity, and monetary demand. Different assets. Different valuation logic. $ETH $BTC $SNDK #CPIPPIEaseFedSplit #SP500Nears8000