Ethereum’s recent performance has ignited a debate within the cryptocurrency community, particularly after claims by a prominent industry figure that the network is “dying.” This assertion comes in light of alarming data indicating a major drop in Ethereum’s revenue and fundamental metrics, raising concerns about its ability to maintain long-term viability despite surpassing significant price milestones.
The controversy began when AJC, the Enterprise Research Manager at Messari Crypto, made a provocative statement on X (formerly Twitter), indicating that “Ethereum is dying.” This claim stems from a reported revenue decrease tied to Ethereum’s ecosystem, despite the cryptocurrency reaching new all-time highs in August 2025. Specifically, Ethereum’s revenue plummeted to $39.2 million for the month, marking a dramatic 75% decline from the previous year’s $157.4 million and a 40% dip from $64.8 million in August 2024. This drop positions the current revenue among the lowest monthly figures recorded since January 2021.
A closer look at the data reveals that Ethereum once enjoyed revenue peaks exceeding $1 billion during periods of heightened activity in 2021 and 2022, primarily driven by the surges within Decentralized Finance (DeFi) and the NFT markets. However, post-boom, the network has seen a steady decline, and revenue lows have persisted, casting doubt on its recovery despite recent bullish price trends.
AJC’s argument highlights a perceived erosion of Ethereum’s core fundamentals, previously considered vital for its long-term value. He expressed concern that the community’s focus on ETH’s market price—while ignoring growing red flags in revenue—could jeopardize the network’s future.
The crypto community’s reactions to these claims have been mixed, with significant pushback from various industry voices. Notably, David Hoffman, a well-respected commentator, criticized the narrow focus on revenue as a sole measure of Ethereum’s health. He posited that ETH’s true value lies in its decentralized ecosystem, which he views as a rapidly expanding emerging economy.
In response, AJC acknowledged Hoffman’s viewpoint but maintained that Ethereum’s superiority over Bitcoin hinges on its technological foundation. He warned that if this foundation weakens, Ethereum’s claims to a comparative advantage over Bitcoin could disappear.
Others in the community contributed differing perspectives. Rick, a research analyst at Messari, argued that Ethereum cannot be classified as “dying” given that metrics like app revenue, stablecoin supply, and layer-2 scaling show record highs. He characterized Ethereum as the most thriving decentralized financial system to date.
Nonetheless, AJC dismissed some of these positive indicators as potentially misleading. He contended that developments like stablecoin issuances could distort actual app revenues and argued that traditional metrics, such as active addresses or transaction throughput, do not adequately represent genuine demand. AJC emphasized that the growth of stablecoins should be considered relevant only if it enhances transaction velocity and that scaling solutions are insignificant without increased user demand.
Meanwhile, community member Leon Lanza argued against comparing Ethereum to tech stocks, emphasizing its commodity-like characteristics. He suggested that commodities aren’t strictly evaluated on revenue. In contrast, AJC countered that even with this framework, revenue remains crucial as it is denominated in ETH and historically influences consumption demand.
As the dialogue continues, the outcome of this debate could have significant ramifications for the Ethereum ecosystem and its future trajectory within the rapidly evolving cryptocurrency landscape.
