The Breakdown of Traditional Metrics: Why PE Fails Ethereum
The conventional wisdom in asset valuation, particularly for growth stocks, dictates that a high price (P) must be justified by a rapidly growing stream of future earnings (E). When attempting to apply this formula to Ethereum, the immediate, surface-level calculation leads to immediate dismissal. This network does not generate net income in the traditional sense. It is a protocol, not a corporation. As a professional, I had to completely restructure my financial lens.
For years, I approached this problem by trying to force the square peg of decentralized finance into the round hole of a traditional balance sheet. The breakthrough came when I stopped viewing the network as a company and started viewing it as a public utility combined with a deflationary commodity. It operates like a machine whose revenue is spent immediately to create value elsewhere.
The most common, but insufficient, measure is to calculate network revenue from transaction fees, often referred to as "gas fees." However, Ethereums architecture, specifically following the London hard fork (EIP-1559) and the subsequent "Merge" to Proof-of-Stake, renders this revenue calculation deceptive. This is the crucial point that differentiates it from every standard technology equity.
-
The Burning Mechanism: A portion of every transaction fee (the base fee) is burned, permanently removing ETH from the total supply. This is a non-discretionary, automated buyback program funded by network users. It is a direct value accrual mechanism for all existing holders. In a traditional stock, this would be reported as an expense or a capital allocation decision, but here it is a systemic deflationary force. This creates scarcity directly proportional to utility.
-
Staking Rewards: The network issues new ETH to reward validators for securing the chain. This issuance is the true cost of security. The net effect on supply (issuance minus burn) is the critical measure. During periods of high network congestion and utility demand, the burn rate often exceeds the issuance rate, making the asset structurally deflationary. Data from Q4 2025 continues to confirm this structural deflationary nature, even amidst market consolidation, underscoring the shift from speculation to fundamental utility.
I found that the only sensible way to define "Earnings" (the E) is by calculating the Net Deflationary Yield (NDY). This metric combines the value of the fee burn (automatic buyback) and the staking yield (income distribution) against the backdrop of total asset supply. When transaction demand is high, the NDY can be substantial, generating positive real yield for holders through scarcity and distribution, a concept foreign to conventional finance. This necessitates an analytical leap—the market is not paying for today's net profit, but for tomorrow's scarcity multiplied by ubiquity. This is the new language of digital asset valuation.
Amazon's Blueprint: Deep Dive into Infrastructural Supremacy
To justify Ethereums current high multiple, we must execute a deep comparative analysis with a historical parallel where the market correctly valued infrastructural potential over immediate profitability: Amazon in its explosive growth phase from the late 1990s through the mid-2000s.
During that period, Amazon's trailing P/E ratio frequently soared into the hundreds, and often showed an undefined or negative value due to periods of net losses. For instance, in 2015, Amazon's annual P/E ratio closed at an astronomical 540x, and in 2017, it was still nearly 190x. These numbers were, by traditional metrics, insane. Yet, the price kept climbing.
-
The Intentional Delay of Profit: Amazon was deliberately minimizing its net income. Every dollar of gross profit was immediately funneled back into building warehouses, sophisticated logistics networks, and, critically, the nascent technology infrastructure that would become Amazon Web Services (AWS). Jeff Bezos was fundamentally focused on market share and operational scale, not GAAP profitability.
-
The Network Effect of Logistics: Each new warehouse and delivery truck exponentially increased the difficulty for competitors to catch up, establishing an insurmountable physical and digital moat. This compounding advantage was what sophisticated investors were truly valuing. The "P" was paying a premium for the certainty of this future, unassailable monopoly.
-
The AWS Analogy and Justification: The retail operation was the necessary precursor to build the underlying cloud computing platform. AWS, the high-margin, sticky infrastructure service, eventually justified the entire early valuation of the company. It provided the high-P/E multiple with real, durable earnings years after the initial infrastructure spend. This historical truth proves that an asset can trade at an irrational multiple for years, provided it is building a foundational, irreplaceable utility.
When I look at this history, the parallel with Ethereum is stunning. Ethereum is spending its "earnings" not on warehouses, but on securing the decentralized state machine and subsidizing initial issuance to achieve absolute decentralization. The burn mechanism ensures that the value created by network utility is immediately and automatically funneled to asset holders, effectively turning the ETH coin into an equity stake in a decentralized, automated infrastructure utility. The high valuation is a payment for the network's unparalleled security budget and developer ecosystem.
Quantifying the Deflationary Engine: Net Supply and Intrinsic Yield
The most sophisticated institutional money flowing into Ethereum in North America is focused intensely on the supply-side dynamics. They have moved past the P/E argument and are focused on the expected time horizon until the circulating supply begins to consistently and aggressively shrink.
The supply change is measured by the difference between the Total Issuance (staking rewards) and the Total Burn (base fees).
The Net Supply Change is calculated as Issuance minus Burn.
The issuance rate is relatively predictable, tied to the amount of ETH staked. The burn rate, however, is a direct, real-time proxy for global demand for decentralized computation. When the network is busy, the burn accelerates. Recent data from Q4 2025 shows average daily transactions reaching 1.74 million and smart contract executions making up 62% of this activity, confirming sustained, high utility demand. This utility keeps the burn rate elevated, resulting in a persistent deflationary tendency.
-
The Investor Viewpoint on Scarcity: Institutional investors see this as a high-growth infrastructure company that is simultaneously executing a massive, mandatory share repurchase program, permanently reducing the denominator of future earnings per share. The argument is simple: if the asset becomes functionally scarcer while utility grows, the price must adjust to infinity to clear the market, barring catastrophic failure. This is an unparalleled structural advantage in any capital market.
-
The Net Deflationary Yield (NDY): I use the NDY to model the true cost of holding ETH versus the compounded value return. NDY is the annualized percentage change in a holder’s relative share of the total supply. It is the staking yield plus the value accretion from the fee burn. This intrinsic yield model gives institutional investors a quantifiable, result-oriented metric that bypasses the need for a traditional P/E ratio, focusing instead on capital efficiency and supply-side alpha.
-
Real-World Asset Tokenization (RWA) as the Catalyst: This is the future AWS of Ethereum. The RWA market expanded from approximately $8.5 billion in early 2024 to an estimated $33.91 billion by Q2 2025, representing explosive growth. Tokenized U.S. Treasuries alone, like those in BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, now hold billions of dollars of value on-chain, utilizing Ethereum as the settlement layer. The anticipated explosion of RWA—bringing trillions of dollars of traditional financial assets onto the blockchain—will require enormous transaction volume, spiking gas fees, and accelerating the burn rate to an extreme degree. Investors are pricing in this utility now because the infrastructure is already proven.
This unique combination of a high-utility asset with a structurally deflationary design fundamentally breaks every traditional valuation model. It necessitates a market multiple far beyond that of a typical high-growth tech company because the return is compounded through both utility capture and scarcity.
The L2 Scaling Strategy and Hub-and-Spoke Economics
The major counter-argument to a high Ethereum valuation is the problem of high gas fees, which theoretically pushes activity to cheaper competitor chains. However, this perspective fails to account for Ethereums successful scaling strategy—the aggressive adoption of Layer 2 (L2) solutions, primarily rollups. This move is not a sign of weakness, but a sophisticated market capture strategy comparable to Amazon's move into logistics.
In 2025, network data confirms a structural shift: the base layer (L1) fees have become more manageable, enabling broader use. More importantly, 60% of daily transactions in Q3 2025 were executed through Layer 2 networks.
-
The Structural Shift: Activity has successfully migrated to L2s like Arbitrum and Base, where transaction fees are mere cents. This makes Ethereum accessible for retail and micro-transactions.
-
The Hub-and-Spoke Model: Ethereum L1 is the Hub—the highly secure, decentralized settlement layer. L2s are the Spokes—the execution and scaling layers. L2s do not exist in a vacuum; they periodically batch their transaction data and submit it to Ethereum L1 for final settlement and security proof.
-
The L2 Value Accrual: This settling process requires L2s to pay gas fees to L1. Therefore, the success of the L2 ecosystem (measured by total value locked and transaction volume) directly translates into demand for L1 computation, thereby driving the ETH burn mechanism. Ethereums valuation must encompass the total economic activity of this entire L2 ecosystem, which still drives the NDY on the main chain. The L2s are the high-volume, low-margin business (like Amazon Retail), funding the high-security, high-moat settlement layer (like AWS).
This scaling strategy is a masterclass in economic design, ensuring that the entire decentralized economy ultimately settles its most valuable transactions on the most secure base layer, with the value flowing back to ETH holders via the burn.
The Unassailable Moat: Security and Developer Supremacy
Amazon's early valuation was a bet on its moat—the logistics network that competitors could not replicate. Ethereum's valuation is also a bet on its moat: the combined power of its decentralization, security, and developer ecosystem.
A decentralized network's moat is measured by the prohibitive cost and complexity required for a competitor to achieve parity.
-
Security Budget (The Cost of Attack): Ethereum currently secures hundreds of billions of dollars in economic value. The sheer financial and technical difficulty of launching a 51% attack against this network is astronomical, thanks to the vast amount of staked ETH. This security premium is a non-negotiable requirement for institutional adoption. Competing Layer 1 networks simply cannot match this economic security budget without centralizing control or drastically increasing inflation. The market is paying a premium for security that is practically immutable.
-
Developer Mindshare (The Application Layer): The vast majority of skilled Web3 developers and all major DeFi protocols are natively built on or ported to Ethereum or its Layer 2 solutions. This is the ultimate network effect. Applications go where the users and security are, and users go where the applications are. It is a self-reinforcing, virtuous loop that acts as a powerful barrier to entry for rival networks. When a new project like Mutuum Finance raises millions of dollars in 2025, it almost invariably chooses to build on the Ethereum ecosystem, reinforcing the dominance.
-
Governance and Finality: The "Merge" provided transaction finality and solidified the network's commitment to decentralization over simple speed. Traditional finance and regulatory bodies prioritize finality and robust, non-corruptible governance structures. Ethereum provides this at scale, making it the preferred settlement layer for regulated entities. This factor alone justifies a higher valuation premium than competitors that face structural centralization risks.
I argue that the high valuation multiple is a price for the unique combination of these three factors. The market is pricing in the reality that it is nearly impossible for a competitor to spend their way into matching this moat. It is a premium paid for safety and certainty in the volatile world of decentralized technology, which is the exact premium Amazon demanded in its infrastructure-building phase.
Financializing Decentralization: The Institutional Flow
The philosophical revaluation of Ethereum is not theoretical; it is being executed by the largest asset managers in North America through significant capital allocation decisions. The approval and launch of Ethereum-based Exchange Traded Products (ETPs) and potential ETFs mark the final step in integrating this asset class into the traditional financial plumbing. This has been the defining trend of 2025.
-
The ETF Gateway and Demand Shock: The existence of these ETPs has provided a compliant, easily-accessible gateway for large funds to gain exposure. In Q4 2025, despite broader market uncertainty linked to AI stock volatility, institutional confidence in Ethereum showed resilience. The market movements are increasingly dictated by large, non-discretionary purchases by funds, rather than retail sentiment. The sheer volume of crypto ETP registration applications in the US market—over 124 by the end of 2025—confirms this structural institutional demand is set to continue.
-
Corporate and Treasury Management Adoption: Companies involved in the digital economy are increasingly holding ETH on their corporate balance sheets. This strategic holding treats the asset as both an inflation hedge and a strategic technology stake. The trend of Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) strategies becoming more prevalent, especially for Ethereum, confirms its perceived long-term value as an infrastructure asset rather than a volatile currency.
-
Regulatory De-Risking: A critical development in 2025 was the removal of cryptocurrency risk warnings from the US Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) Annual Report. This official signal from the US government effectively de-risks the asset class for conservative financial institutions. As regulatory clarity accelerates institutional adoption, especially concerning stablecoins and tokenized assets, the capital flow into the secure Ethereum base layer becomes less a speculative bet and more a calculated infrastructure investment.
This shift is the hallmark of an asset maturing from a speculative commodity to a recognized, institutional-grade infrastructure play, justifying a commensurate leap in its valuation multiple. The market is pricing in the regulatory certainty achieved in 2025.
Risk Analysis and Contingency Planning
No high-growth thesis is without risk. The high valuation multiple on Ethereum is predicated on two primary contingent outcomes:
-
Continued Technical Dominance: That Ethereum successfully executes future scaling and efficiency upgrades (e.g., sharding, Layer 2 integration) and maintains its security while keeping pace with demand.
-
Favorable Regulatory Environment: That North American and global regulators do not introduce crushing restrictions that stifle the growth of decentralized finance and the RWA movement.
My contingency planning focuses on the competitive landscape. While the network effects are strong, competitors continually attempt to undercut Ethereums high gas fees. However, this is where the Amazon analogy proves most robust.
-
The Moat's Resilience: Competitors may offer cheaper fees, but they cannot offer the same level of security and decentralization. The market for decentralized settlement is fundamentally risk-averse. Institutions will always pay a premium for the most secure base layer. This is why competing blockchains, despite being technically faster or cheaper, fail to displace Ethereum as the primary settlement layer for high-value applications. The cost of failure on a weaker chain is simply too high.
-
The Scaling Solution: The success of Layer 2s fundamentally neutralizes the cost argument without compromising the security or value accrual. Ethereums strategy is not to become the cheapest, but to become the most secure and scalable through modular layers. If Layer 2 solutions successfully absorb the high transaction volume, it mitigates the biggest user-facing complaint (high fees) while preserving the high-value accrual mechanism (the burn) on the main chain.
This is a bet on execution, scale, and the compounding power of the most decentralized and secure settlement layer in the world. The price reflects a forward-looking discount of a utility that is rapidly becoming indispensable to global finance. While this method isn't perfect, it helps in setting a clear, structurally sound direction for understanding Ethereums seemingly irrational valuation.