I can't take you serious when you make ridiculous claims that ETH will decline to $100 which is a fair value. Are you nuts?! That's completely naïve and delusional thinking. You were wrong about the SEC and Ethereum and you're wrong about that.
There are over 1 million validators and 33 million staked ETH.
Ethereum is arguably more decentralized than Bitcoin. It never goes down, offers yield at a lower inflation rate than the current BTC, is being adopted worldwide by institutions and banks, has a first-mover smart contract advantage like Bitcoin has with blockchains.
There are more developers working on building out Ethereum than any other chain by a large margin.
Just the ETH L2 Base has about as many developers as Bitcoin. There are ten times more developers in the Ethereum network than Bitcoin. And many of them started with Bitcoin, including Vitalik.
https://www.developerreport.com/
ETH is extremely undervalued against BTC. A fair value to me should at a minimum be 3:1 or even 1:1. Maybe ETH is more valuable than BTC when you consider all BTC's shortcomings and even disregard the bigger ETH supply! 
Obsidian - you really are, naively, confusing multiple concepts here. MayDay says a lot of stuff, but one thing he has a number of times tried to explain (and I think it just went over your head) which I agree with, are the different functions of BTC vs Eth, which in turn are relevant to their valuations.
I am thinking now, by the way that you talk, that you may never really have had experience in fundamental valuation of assets - am I correct? (For example, the "Trump coin", which you mentioned at its peak you "wished you had bought", has fallen from $70 to $18 in less than a few weeks. This is really a perfect example of lack of understanding of asset valuation fundamentals).
So, let me explain a little, as maybe it is wrong of me to assume everyone innately knows how this is done. (As you know, I come from a traditional finance and investing background, so to me and those around me, this is really quite an innate skill, much like a language we have grown up with. Its core to how we look at any asset or investment opportunity. But I get it - there is an entirely generation who has grown up not learning these skills - perhaps especially the whole crypto degen and Wall St Bets generation. And we see examples of it on this thread, and not only from you).
Price is, in the short term, driven by demand for an asset. And the creation of an Eth staking yield post-merge led to some initial appeal for Eth. They thought they were being smart in trying to outdo BTC. But they actually laid their own trap which commenced their downfall. Indeed, the downside of such shitcoinery, is that this development was actually the final nail in the coffin which led Eth to be perceived (and valued) as a capital value asset (as opposed to a store of value asset). And what that means is that it then becomes more likely to be priced over time, on an intrinsic valuation methodology using the traditional discounted cash flow model which is applied to valuing other income generating assets such as stocks. And that’s where, over time, price of Eth will be a lot more tied to revenue and profitability metrics as opposed to store of value utility (which BTC now owns) or any kind of other usage or adoption metrics of Eth which initially created some interest in the asset. This is also the case due to Eth's security-ike properties, which the market is slowly understanding, and which I have tried to explain so many times. Remember, its not what the SEC calls Eth which matters, but rather what Eth fundamentally is which does. And again, due to its security like properties, it increasingly becomes valued as a security would - that cannot be stopped, which is why my and Gensler's many earlier explanations about Eth's security-like properties, vs BTC are important to understand and take heed of. I was 100% right about this, and we are of course now slowly seeing the consequences of this being realized (for obvious reasons). Remember earlier my explanation that you can put a piece of shit into an ETF wrapper - but that does not fundamentally change the quality of what is its you have wrapped! Whether you call it a security or not, it is irrelevant. The market has sniffed this out, and it knows what Eth is. And that is of course why Eth has continued to flop.
As for what Eth should be valued using a DCF model, I deliberately triggered you with my eventual $100 valuation statement. I did it because I am trying to prompt you on your journey of understanding, to think, deeply, "how do I correctly value Eth? (Clue - its not "oh 1000's of developers use it, Eric Trump said he likes it, banks find it secure, etc). Really - think about it. Look at the total revenue, (and try to forecast the impact on future revenue growth from cheaper and faster alternatives such as Solana and others), and then look at the current market cap - then look at the PE, and then compare that to a similar size tech company. And then consider relative valuations for the risk taken. That will give you your number. Treat Eth as a business, and assess whether the price per share is currently at good value.
And then further, bear in mind that any increase in the value of Eth is fundamentally incongruous to its desirability to being used as a utility token. Think about that for a moment. You are investing in an asset which you seem to value due to it being used as token for a smart chain for certain typos of transactions, yet the more the price of such a token goes up, the less of an incentive there is to use it and the more of an incentive there is to use an alternative (the number of which are infinite)! Vitalik also commented on this phenomenon many years ago. Think about the insanity of this for just a moment.
As to what is Eth's true valuation is on a proper valuation methodology, it’s a longer conversation with numerous variables which require future assumptions which are rather unclear. I have done some back of envelope calculations using my models and I get a current valuation ranging between as low as $100 to as high as, theoretically, $5000, (depending among other things an assumption of continued future revenue growth, and also estimates on what number I should use as the future risk free rate of return). What I do think though, regardless, is that we are on a progressively downward trend, coming from an extremely overvalued level due a fundamental investor misunderstanding of value. And that is a really tough tide to swim against as an investor.
Right, now that really is it for a while. Good luck! Please consider scaling back into BTC. That little selloff in Eth should serve as warning as to what might be ahead. Markets often give you these little hits and warnings - ignore them at your peril. These are like little earthquake tremors before the big one. Please do some thinking - do the exercise I suggested on another post, of you debating all the pros/cons with yourself - really I suggest you do this. Do not let me have to come back still debating on this with you when
Eth hits a 5 year low to BTC, which will happen (for obvious reasons).
And PS - you know which paragraph I will be quoting of myelf, when I do come back to this thread, don't you.
