Ethereum

L1 fees don’t drive token value.

Tron users paid $2.8B in fees this year, more than 2x ETH. & it’s worth just 8% as much

The real driver? Being a long term reserve asset.
Fee burn is noise

tokenterminal.com/explorer/projects/tron/metrics/fees
tokenterminal.com/explorer/projects/ethereum/metrics/fees

/ethereum foundation | opinions are my own but more than likely they come from Vitalik's blog paragraph.xyz/@chaskin

It matters for narrative, though, as people will assume these fees grow over time. 

For Tron it doesn't happen that much because most people who get crypto understand that it's bound to lose long term

Building @kiwi | https://macbudkowski.com/

I am also in the 'ETH is the digital oil' camp, because it seems the most accurate. Not sure if it's best for price appreciation though, as people's mental model is that oil price is pretty stable (minus short term shocks like wars etc)

I agree it matters for narrative but only because the Ethereum community let a totally disconnected idea take hold: that crypto assets are now valued using DCFs just because some of them have a fee burn

But these assets aren't worth trillions because of fees

Bitcoin got the narrative right. The Bitcoin community positioned BTC as a reserve asset, as digital gold. Gold is worth $20 trillion, so BTC is valued in that frame

We need to do the same for ETH. ETH is a reserve asset with utility, digital oil. Oil is worth over $100 trillion. That is the framing the world needs to see ETH in