TL;DR
- Samson Mow argues Ethereum is not money, criticizing the Foundation for selling ETH.
- He claims Ethereum builders avoid holding ETH, preferring stablecoins or fiat instead.
- Mow contrasts this with Bitcoin, stating its builders happily accept BTC payments.
Samson Mow, CEO of JAN3 and recognized Bitcoin maximalist, launched public critique arguing Ethereum does not operate as “money” in the way Bitcoin does. His March 19, 2026 comments emphasize financial practices of the Ethereum Foundation and contrast them with Bitcoin ecosystem. Mow’s core argument rests on straightforward yet provocative observation: workers building Ethereum do not want to be paid in ETH, while Bitcoin workers would accept BTC as compensation without hesitation.
The Ethereum Foundation recently sold 5,000 ETH at approximately $2,049 each instead of retaining tokens or using them to compensate contributors. Simultaneously, organizations like OpenSats accept fiat donations and convert them to Bitcoin for grants, revealing institutional preference for BTC. Those actions communicate clear message: institutional ETH holders perceive the token as an asset to sell, not as currency to use or retain.
If workers building Ethereum would reject payment in the token representing their network, then ETH fails at a fundamental function of currency: serving as an accepted medium of exchange. Bitcoin by contrast attracts willing participants prepared to work directly for BTC, suggesting the network achieved something Ethereum has not: widespread recognition as genuine store of value.
JAN3 Issues Exchange Risk Warning While Philosophical Debate Escalates
Beyond Ethereum critique, JAN3 issued reminder to the crypto community about risks of holding cryptocurrency on exchange platforms. Mow and his company emphasized even the best-run exchanges remain vulnerable to operational collapse or insolvency. Recommendation was direct: always control your own private keys rather than trusting third-party custodians. “Trusting an exchange is the same as trusting a stranger,” they stated.
Advising on custody is not isolated from Ethereum critique but part of broader philosophy: centralization weakens monetary systems. Ethereum, per outlook, runs risk of failure because the developer and user community has not fully internalized the token’s value as money. Bitcoin conversely created incentive alignment where participants voluntarily retain the asset.
This is how you know Ethereum isn’t money. No one working on Ethereum actually wants to be paid in ETH.
Almost anyone working on Bitcoin at any level (research, protocol, applications, etc) would happily take BTC as payment. In fact it would be preferred. https://t.co/S9XusX38q2
— Samson Mow (@Excellion) March 19, 2026
The debate between Mow and Ethereum defenders reflects fundamental philosophical divide in cryptocurrency. Bitcoin maximalists view BTC as digital gold and supreme store of value, asserting single pure reserve asset surpasses multiple networks with diverse purposes.
Ethereum defenders counter that decentralized applications possess intrinsic value driving ETH demand independently from acceptance as money. Tension will persist as both projects compete for capital and attention across regulatory environments and adoption waves.