ONLY BITCOIN IS INCORRUPTIBLE
Share
There's something fascinating about this era where everything that glitters is instantly sanctified. All it takes is an administrative green light, a capital letter, or a green line on a chart for the media machine to kick into overdrive and proclaim a new chapter in financial history. This is exactly what happened in recent weeks when US regulators approved the Ethereum spot ETF. A decision that was awaited, speculated upon, anticipated, and then finally made official. And immediately, the rhetoric poured forth, as if from a mold: Ethereum is now equal to Bitcoin. The credible alternative. The second throne in a two-headed digital system. Some analysts even spoke of a "historic moment," as if Ethereum had just joined the pantheon of monetary assets, on par with king Bitcoin. But behind the muted excitement of TV shows and the triumphant tweets of crypto influencers, a key question was overlooked: what is this supposed equality based on?
A spot ETF, in reality, is just a financial vehicle. A mirror. A tool designed to reflect the price of an underlying asset on a traditional market. It says nothing about the true nature of that asset. It doesn't validate its code, its governance, its philosophy. It guarantees neither its neutrality, nor its resilience, nor its sovereignty. The Ethereum ETF, like the Bitcoin ETF, is just a bridge between two worlds. But these two worlds are not comparable. One is an apolitical, incorruptible currency, designed to resist capture. The other is a programmable platform, subject to human adjustments, centralized decisions, and an evolutionary logic. This is where the confusion becomes dangerous. Because by constantly referring to Ethereum as Bitcoin's little brother, or presenting the two assets as equivalent pillars of digital finance, we forget that their very nature is radically different.
Bitcoin was born out of rejection. A rejection of the banking system, of state monetary control, of the arbitrary creation of money. It is the direct heir to a cypherpunk struggle for individual sovereignty. It was designed as a bastion. A deliberately rigid system, based on simple, verifiable, non-negotiable rules. Bitcoin's supply is fixed at 21 million units. No authority can change this number without triggering a breakdown in consensus. Block validation relies on proof-of-work, which requires a real expenditure of energy, making any attempt at manipulation costly and risky. The network is distributed, with no central point of control. It has no CEO, no foundation, no supreme developer. Its strength is its decentralization, its intentional slowness, its resistance to human intervention. Bitcoin is a monetary protocol designed to last 100 years, without needing to be reinvented.
Ethereum, on the contrary, claims to be a testing ground. Since its creation, it has continued to evolve, fork, and reform. Its shift from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake is the perfect illustration. Where Bitcoin is rooted in an austere architecture, Ethereum embraces change, flexibility, and technical governance. This isn't a flaw in itself. But it's a reality that must be faced. Ethereum is governed. There are core developers, a foundation, decisions made in meetings, roadmaps, coordinated forks, and compromises. It's a living platform, certainly, but one that relies on trust in a technical elite. And this elite can, if it sees fit, change the rules of the game.
The question of monetary supply is central. Since the EIP-1559 update and the transition to proof-of-stake, Ethereum's supply has become dynamic. Sometimes slightly deflationary, sometimes inflationary. The issuance of new ETH depends on network fees, the number of validators, and the economic context. Nothing is fixed. Nothing is guaranteed. The famous 21 million hard cap, so fundamental to Bitcoin, is completely absent from Ethereum. Some would say this isn't a problem, that flexibility is a strength. But from a monetary sovereignty perspective, it's a flaw. An open door to dilution, manipulation, and social engineering. An asset whose supply can be adjusted by a few brilliant minds cannot claim the same status as one that sets its limits in stone by the global consensus.
There's also the issue of censorship. Since its transition to proof-of-stake, Ethereum has seen the majority of its blocks validated by entities that comply with US regulations. This means that transactions deemed non-compliant with OFAC sanctions can be delayed or even ignored. Bitcoin, with its proof-of-work and decentralized mining, remains far more resistant to this type of filtering. It can accommodate all transactions, even those deemed politically sensitive. It is a space of raw freedom, indifferent to borders, laws, or injunctions. Ethereum, despite its technical power, has shown that it can be aligned with regulators' requirements. This changes everything.
The current media narrative is based on a misunderstanding. It confuses institutional access with fundamental value. The fact that Ethereum now has a spot ETF, just like Bitcoin, doesn't mean it has achieved the same degree of neutrality, security, or scarcity. It simply means that it has been deemed stable, liquid, and controllable enough to be transformed into a financial product. But therein lies the trap. What institutions like isn't resilience, it's malleability. It's not radical independence, it's compatibility. Bitcoin scares them because it's immovable. Ethereum, on the other hand, can be adapted, understood, channeled. It's not a threat, it's an opportunity. That's why it was validated.
The difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum isn't one of speed, scalability, or features. It's one of nature. One is a radical break with the existing financial paradigm. The other is an attempt to extend that paradigm into the digital age. Bitcoin is a currency. Ethereum is a tool. Bitcoin is a neutral monetary protocol, one that makes no promises, seeks no favors, and doesn't change. Ethereum is a programmable, multi-use-case environment that is constantly evolving. Comparing the two based solely on regulatory approval ignores their respective essences. It's judging a tree by the height of its foliage, not by the depth of its roots.
In a world where central banks print without limits, where currencies have become instruments of control, where debt has become structural, it is not enough to have a digital asset to claim the alternative. You need a foundation. A guarantee. A protocol that refuses to compromise. Bitcoin makes no promises. It doesn't change the rules mid-stream. It doesn't censor. It doesn't ask for permission. It is raw, cold, incorruptible. This is what makes it unique. It is not a project that evolves. It is a fixed point around which the world can align.
The Ethereum ETF may appeal to traders, asset managers, and speculators. It offers them a structured product that's easy to handle and integrate into their portfolios. But it doesn't transform Ethereum into a sovereign monetary asset. It doesn't give it neutrality, scarcity, or resilience. It doesn't erase its history of forks, bugs, and centralized decision-making. It doesn't eliminate its dependence on compliant validators. It doesn't give it a hard cap. It doesn't provide a shield against capture.
What we see today is not equality. It is an illusion of equivalence. And this illusion is dangerous. Because it distracts from the only protocol that can truly offer a sustainable monetary alternative. Bitcoin doesn't need ETFs to exist. It doesn't need institutional validation to work. It doesn't need a charismatic founder or star developers. It doesn't need a roadmap. It is already complete. It has been running for fifteen years. It has never been compromised. It continues, block after block, to produce a leaderless global consensus.
Ethereum proponents will talk about innovation, modularity, and use cases. They'll be right, to a certain extent. Ethereum enables fascinating things. But wanting to elevate it to the rank of Bitcoin, under the pretext of an ETF, is to confuse surface with structure. It's not the same purpose. It's not the same fight. It's not the same promise.
Bitcoin isn't trying to replace banks. It's trying to make them obsolete. It isn't trying to seduce governments. It's trying to bypass them. It isn't trying to evolve. It's trying to resist. That's why it's disruptive. That's why it's under attack. And that's why it's irreplaceable.
So yes, Ethereum has its ETF. Bravo. But that doesn't fundamentally change anything. It doesn't give it a hard cap. It doesn't give it neutrality. It doesn't give it sovereignty. The day the spotlight shifts, when prices fall again, when networks are put to the test, there will only be one question left: which asset is truly incorruptible? The rest is just a show.
What Bitcoin offers isn't participation in the system. It's an exit from it. It's not an investment opportunity. It's a peaceful weapon. A declaration of sovereignty. A safe haven. And no ETF can replicate that.
👉 Also read: