We're all watching the charts, aren't we? Staring at ETH price, trying to guess what’s the next PEMDAS that makes it go up, murmuring sweet nothings about institution money. With all of this jubilation, a far more significant question remains – a question that most everyone is afraid to ask. Are we really building a future for all, or just for few?

Who's Getting Priced Out, Really?

Let's be blunt. The narrative around Ethereum's price often focuses on the big wins: the million-dollar NFTs, the institutional investments, the promise of a decentralized financial utopia. How does that help the artist who can’t afford to mint their first piece due to high gas fees? What about the small business owner who wants to build a dApp on Ethereum but can’t afford to do it? What’s the impact on the neighborhoods in third world countries? They are told they will have greater access to banking, but they continue to be excluded by exorbitant barriers to access.

The dirty secret is this: as Ethereum's price climbs, so does the barrier to entry. Otherwise we may find ourselves with a system that effectively excludes everyone who isn’t wealthy. This would only deepen existing inequities rather than level the playing field. It's like building a magnificent skyscraper but forgetting to install an elevator for those who can't afford the penthouse suite.

This isn’t only a dollars-and-cents issue — it’s an opportunity-and-justice issue. It’s deeply about who gets to participate in the future of the internet. Or, are we implementing a new, decentralized system that everybody can join? Or are we simply reproducing the old power dynamics, but on the blockchain? Are we building a digital feudalism?

  • A small creator wants to launch an NFT collection. Gas fees alone could eat up a significant portion of their potential earnings.
  • A developer in a low-income country wants to build a DeFi application. The cost of deploying a smart contract might be prohibitive.
  • Everyday users looking to make simple transactions are hit with fees that make it almost pointless.

Ethereum 2.0 is taking the challenge of scalability directly to their core. Unfortunately, even with these improvements, the concentration of power still poses a major concern. The move to Proof of Stake (PoS) shifts those incentives so that there’s a strong incentive for a small number of actors to centralize their ETH. That concentration provides them with greater leeway in dictating how the network will operate. Picture it going from a democracy to oligarchy, in which a handful of the richest people in the world buy up control of the entire system.

The Unintended Centralization Problem

The positive narrative is that Ethereum is getting greener and more scalable, both of which would be fantastic. What if the cost of entry stays the same? Smaller players are squeezed out, and the network becomes more and more under the control of the large institutions and wealthy individuals driving speculation.

This isn’t solely a technical challenge — it’s a social one. We need to ask ourselves whether we're comfortable with a future where Ethereum is controlled by a handful of powerful entities. As we do this, are we building a genuinely decentralized system, or just crafting an even newer centralized power?

The original idea of Ethereum was based on decentralization, accessibility and inclusivity. As the rent shoots through the roof, those values have perhaps understandably gone out the window. We're so focused on the potential for profit that we're forgetting the original vision.

  • PoS favors those with significant ETH holdings, giving them more influence over network governance.
  • High gas fees discourage small transactions, pushing users towards centralized exchanges and solutions.
  • The focus on high-value NFTs overshadows the needs of smaller creators and everyday users.

It is worth celebrating! Now, it really is time to take a step back and ask ourselves some tough questions. Are we really going to abandon the outpost of decentralization in our move towards higher prices? Are we really okay with a system that kicks out the people who cannot afford to play? Are we creating a future that works for all Americans, or only a fortunate few?

Forgotten Ideals, Rising Prices?

The emergence of alternative blockchains such as Solana and Polkadot further underscores increasing consumer demand for faster, cheaper transactions. While Ethereum’s large, developed ecosystem should give it a leg-up in this competition, it’s unable to take its users for granted. If Ethereum becomes a place where only the wealthiest few can afford to transact, it loses its value and goes from being the future to the past.

We need to stop focusing on Ethereum’s price and start recognizing Ethereum’s true value. It has the promise to lead to a more equitable and accessible financial system for all. We can’t allow the greed and shortsightedness of the moment to obscure that better vision. We must ensure that in the race for profit, the needs of these forgotten voices aren’t lost. Let’s create a real decentralized future—not just a new gatekeeper, but a future that works for all of us.

The rise of alternative blockchains like Solana and Polkadot highlights the growing demand for faster, cheaper transactions. While Ethereum's established ecosystem provides a competitive advantage, it cannot afford to ignore the needs of its users. If Ethereum becomes too expensive and inaccessible, it risks losing its relevance and becoming a relic of the past.

We need to remember that the value of Ethereum isn't just in its price; it's in its potential to create a more equitable and accessible financial system for all. Let's not let greed and shortsightedness blind us to that vision. Let’s not let the pursuit of profit overshadow the needs of the forgotten voices. Let's build a truly decentralized future, one that includes everyone.