ETH holders haven't been tested yet.
After a bottoming of the ratio, alts were such a shit show that BTC holders who were dumping at the top did not have appetite to rollover those gains for maximum risk taking into ETH. Hence ETH failed and sold off.
The ratio touched the top trend twice. The last attempt was the 3rd attempt and it didn't make it to the previous trend, it got rejected on a much lower ratio trend.
The ratio has tested the bottom reset twice. We are about to go for the 3rd attempt...... we know the 3rd attempt at the top failed, therefore this one to the bottom is important.
Anyhoo, fundamentals most often do not include belief of value. belief of value comes first, then price follows as an outcome of supply and demand. You do not have supply and demand dictate price by itself. I argued that to Plan B and I got blocked lol.
So sure, today the staked numbers might look good but the issue is that ratio is telling you the belief of its value cracked at the top which is why price action is worse despite supply,/demand fundamentals looking better. That Plan B shit is a red herring....... His method falls over stupid fast because you can have the same number of holders, same volume but price per unit vary massively.
I agree that psychological "belief of value" drives crypto price action far more than immediate fundamentals, and ETH has clearly struggled against BTC. However, claiming ETH holders haven't been tested is completely detached from reality. Look at the brutal string of red monthly candles ETH has endured — BTC has faced nothing close to that relentless grind.
Furthermore, Bitcoin’s narrative premium is hiding massive structural fragility. Saylor’s Stretch preferred stock dangles an 11.5% yield on an asset that produces absolutely zero native cash flow. This financial engineering is actively attracting flighty, yield-chasing "weak hands" who will capitulate the moment the corporate debt loop shows strain. This is a synthetic premium, whereas Ethereum’s primary bottleneck is purely a marketing and mindshare deficit. It has historically been marketed to developers instead of asset allocators. This represents an asymmetric upside: as ETH marketing inevitably shifts toward its status as a secure, yield-bearing, productive store-of-value capital asset, that mindshare gap will compress.
Long-term, the structural physics favor Ethereum. Bitcoin faces a terminal security budget dilemma. With miner block rewards continuously vanishing and transaction fees making up less than 1% of miner revenue, the chain might not secure itself 12–24 years from now. A finite supply sounds great on paper, but it destroys the security spend. Meanwhile, Ethereum’s hard-fork upgrade culture ensures it can transition to being Quantum Ready seamlessly, while Bitcoin’s completely ossified code base leaves it exposed to future systemic technological extinction.
