Two major pieces of Ethereum news landed today: Deutsche Bank, Germany’s largest bank, is reportedly preparing to offer institutional ETH custody, while JPMorgan, the largest bank in the United States, is bringing JPM Coin’s tokenized dollar deposits to Ethereum. Two giants of traditional finance embracing Ethereum and ETH. But the price barely reacted, whereas on another network, people would be expecting a major pump. There are two reasons for this. First, ETH is larger and more liquid than most competing assets, so it takes more buying pressure to move it. Second, the market already expects major institutions to build on Ethereum. Another announcement is not subverting expectations. Some people might say Ethereum is cursed: success is expected, and it only has something to lose when it disappoints. This is where Ethereum bulls diverge from bears. For years, bulls predicted the adoption now materializing before our eyes. This was NOT consensus. People said institutions would never use Ethereum, or would build everything privately. Now it’s: “That’s already priced in. Good for Ethereum, but how does it accrue value to ETH?” There are two things that mentality ignores. First, this is financial adoption, with size. The players matter, but so do the capital they commit, the assets they tokenize, and how deeply they integrate their products and services. All of that shows growing trust in Ethereum as a financial network, both for people using layer one directly and for layer twos using it for settlement. We are gradually building an internet of finance where the underlying network has one native asset: Ether. ETH secures that system and can be used directly as collateral. Bringing Bitcoin or any other asset, into Ethereum requires additional backing, bridge, or custody arrangements. Native ETH already belongs there. Why does this matter so much? Financial activity settling on Ethereum does not pay Bitcoin’s miners. Bitcoin’s own security model anticipates transaction fees replacing its declining issuance. That activity will not magically show up on Bitcoin just because its proponents expect it to. Second, the uncertainty pushed around ETH’s supply ignores what has actually happened. Since the Merge, ETH’s net supply has grown roughly 1.3% in total, while continuing to reward the stakers securing it. Stakers can earn above supply dilution, with transaction income on top. For an asset used as a store of value, that cannot simply be ignored. There is already actual substance behind ETH’s gradual recognition as a store of value. The network has matured. Proof of stake has years of operation behind it. Current SEC guidance identifies ETH as a digital commodity. The ETFs that critics said would never happen now exist, including BlackRock’s multibillion-dollar fund. Treasury companies like Bitmine and Sharplink are accumulating ETH at scale, and their holdings can produce staking income. That adds another way for investors to gain exposure, and another reason to hold the asset. So when bulls talk about ETH eventually flipping Bitcoin, then gold, this is what they are looking at: an asset with restrained supply growth, native yield, and direct usefulness in a growing financial system. You can disagree with that thesis. But “the price didn’t move” does not answer it. Fundamentals are moving int the right direction, but price is a lagging metric. Many of the things bulls expected are happening. The argument is that ETH is severely underpriced, and that the market still underestimates where it leads.
People seem confused about why Tesla is getting so much backlash over its new "flying Roadster." For those of us who were once genuinely enthusiastic about Tesla, this isn't about hating innovation. It's about a long history of broken promises, misleading expectations, and increasingly absurd marketing. Tesla unveiled the second-generation Roadster in 2017, took customer deposits, and promised deliveries in 2020. Six years past that deadline, it still hasn't delivered the car. Instead, it's demonstrating an even more outrageous version with features that will likely never make it into production. The original 2nd gen Roadster would still be an amazing car today. Why not just deliver what was promised? Then there's Full Self-Driving. Tesla marketed the idea that Model 3 owners could turn their cars into income-generating robotaxis. That never materialized. Even if the technology eventually gets there, the opportunity has already passed for many early buyers. Timing matters. Delivering something a decade late isn't fulfilling the promise you sold to customers. And then there's Solar Roof. Unveiled in 2016 as a revolutionary approach to residential solar, it struggled with costs, installation challenges, and adoption far below expectations. After nearly a decade, Tesla discontinued it entirely in August 2026. Another grand vision abandoned, leaving existing customers with a discontinued product to maintain. Then came the Cybertruck, marketed as a nearly indestructible, revolutionary truck. Instead, we got a vehicle with questionable build quality, numerous recalls, expensive repairs, disappointing results in several real-world off-road tests, and specifications that fell short of the original promises. It literally looks like a dumpster, but aesthetics aside, the collapsing demand speaks volumes about the reality of what Tesla delivered. Another heavily hyped product that fell dramatically short of expectations. This is how consumer trust erodes. Not through one disappointment, but through years of accumulating them. And this is part of the reason why many people who were once enthusiastic about Tesla have become critical and cynical about it. But there's something even more fundamental here: Tesla has completely departed from the grounded, practical vision that made so many of us enthusiastic about the company in the first place. Electric cars were ambitious, but the idea was grounded in reality. People could charge at home, infrastructure could gradually expand, technology could improve, and millions of ordinary people could eventually benefit. There was a realistic path toward mass adoption. What the hell does a flying Roadster powered by compressed-air thrusters have to do with any of that? It's an expensive, impractical engineering stunt with enormous packaging, safety, and regulatory challenges, and no credible near-term path toward mass-market usefulness. Modern electric cars already achieve ridiculous acceleration without this nonsense. What practical problem does it solve? Who actually needs it? When will ordinary consumers benefit? And watching Tesla fans compare this experimental prototype in a Roadster-shaped shell to actual production vehicles people can buy today is ridiculous. What's especially infuriating is the cult-like mentality surrounding all of this. You can't point out the history of failed promises, question the practicality, or demand realistic timelines without being accused of being a "hater" or having "Elon derangement syndrome." Tesla deserves recognition for helping make electric cars a reality, but that success doesn't give it a blank check to keep marketing increasingly fantastical promises while failing to deliver on previous commitments. This isn't hatred. It's disappointment from people who once believed in the company, watched it accomplish extraordinary things, and have since watched it increasingly substitute practical innovation with spectacle and promises. Elon fanboys are also ignoring a bigger pattern that goes beyond Tesla. What made many of us enthusiastic about Elon and Tesla and in the first place was a grounded vision of technological progress that could genuinely improve millions of lives. Electric cars were ambitious, but practical, achievable, and useful to ordinary people. Now we're supposed to get excited about flying cars with compressed-air thrusters that have no credible path to mass adoption and solve no meaningful problem for the average consumer. It's the same kind of thinking behind marketing the colonization of Mars as some urgent necessity for humanity's survival. There's nothing wrong with space exploration, but Earth isn't about to become uninhabitable because of the Sun. We're talking about geological timescales, while humanity faces enormous problems RIGHT NOW: poverty, hunger, access to education, corruption, abuse of power, wars, and a lack of government accountability. We have plenty of very real problems to solve before worrying about humanity's survival on another planet. And then there's DOGE. I was genuinely excited about the original idea of making government more efficient, reducing waste, and increasing accountability. Instead, we got questionable savings figures, inexperienced people making sweeping decisions, serious concerns over access to sensitive personal information, and an initiative that ultimately fizzled out without delivering its grand promises. Another enormous narrative that fell apart when confronted with reality. That's what makes all of this so frustrating. It's not that we stopped believing in technological progress. It's that we've watched someone who once pursued grounded, transformative ideas increasingly embrace fantastical promises, political spectacle, and questionable narratives disconnected from practical reality. And somehow, pointing out this history of disappointment gets you labeled a "hater" or accused of having "Elon derangement syndrome." The problem isn't dreaming big. It's repeatedly selling people those dreams, failing to deliver, and then expecting everyone to applaud the next, even more ridiculous promise without asking what happened to the last one. The world doesn't need more spectacular promises. It needs practical solutions to real problems, honest expectations, and accountability for what was promised. That's what made Tesla exciting in the first place, and that's what so many of us feel has been betrayed.
The real feat would’ve been actually delivering the second-generation Roadster Elon unveiled nearly a decade ago, the one Tesla took preorders for and never even put into production.
Porsche's new electric car is a real product. Tesla's flying car feature is not and never will be. Tesla's updated version of the roadster (without the flying boosters) was originally revealed in 2017 with a scheduled debut for 2020. Tesla took preorders, but the car was never delivered. Tesla/Elon fanboys are so retarded and delusional that they won't see a problem with any of this... sad.
Elon fanboys are salivating over a Roadster that drives upside-down and flies with compressed-air thrusters when they have no fucking idea those things will never become a consumer product, and are oblivious to Tesla’s failure to deliver the much less ambitious Roadster V2. Tesla took deposits for the V2 in 2017 and promised delivery in 2020. The car was never produced. Now an even bigger promise gets applause instead of scrutiny. A thruster-equipped demo is one thing. A car that is street legal and people can safely drive in traffic, park, maintain, repair, and insure is another. What was demoed yesterday will never be in a consumer product. Promoting this as a consumer product is a betrayal of the customers who had already put money down for a much more modest version of it that was never delivered. There is nothing “historic” about this. It is a deceitful marketing stunt. What Tesla did is VERY cool as a tech demo, but promoting it as a consumer product, taking deposits then missing deadlines by years, and selling a fantasy that will never see daylight is not just a marketing stunt, it is a scam.
MEV is an undesirable problem in crypto, but it is slowly being addressed. On the other hand, you’d be a fool to think it doesn’t exist in traditional finance. TradFi isn’t just exposed to the same basic dynamics, it has entire business models built around extracting value from order flow, information asymmetries, and privileged positioning.
The most monetizable and flexible option for Apple is to launch their own L2 along with their own stablecoin on Ethereum. It's just a matter of time until each major tech giant follows suit.
Trump's administration is a circus. Is this what you voted for?
If Republicans were really willing to “do right” by the American people, they should have confronted Trump’s crypto dealings as they were happening. Instead, they largely stayed silent. That silence was a problem, and so was the scale of Trump’s personal financial involvement in crypto. Together, they created serious conflict-of-interest concerns that Republicans failed to adequately address or even acknowledge. Republicans then tried to negotiate legislation meant to advance that same industry without first resolving those concerns. So understand the position that put them in at the negotiating table. Given that context, it was hardly unreasonable for Democrats to insist that conflicts of interest, loopholes, and other exploitable gaps be thoroughly scrutinized before agreeing to move the bill forward. And yes, Democrats spent years taking an aggressively hostile approach toward crypto, but when it came to Trump’s own involvement, Republicans largely stood by while he did many of the very things Democrats had previously pointed to as hypothetical examples of how the industry could be abused. In doing so, they fed the very political opposition to crypto that they had spent years fighting. Now that opposition is back at the negotiating table, and the same checks and balances that once benefited the industry are working in the other direction.