Of course, a BTC Holdr will tell me that the Fed and central banks will destroy fiat, the inflation is coming and it'll be the end of the world. And of course, I understand how this can be translated to ETH.

But I am trying to find non-apocalyptical arguments for ETH.

When I think about Ethereum, I think mostly about two things: DeFi and other applications.

DeFi: Goldman Sachs enjoys to brag that they have more developers than Facebook. I already worked for a Bank and I can say that the tech sector is pretty codifiable. Of course, the question is: why should we trust unauditable Credit Suisse's Risk Management if instead we can use protocols like Uniswap and Maker and achieve the same goals?

So I understand that if the demand for trustless finance is big, in some way the profits of the banks, asset managements, insurance companies, MasterCard, visa, Experian, Delloite: it all will become profit of DeFi protocol (that maybe can pass some of this profits to customers, through lower prices) but also for ETH itself, because Ethereum stakers will get their fair share of the DeFi ecosystem.

My question here is: how do you frame the opportunity for trustless finance? 1% of the world will go trustless? 10%? 100%? How did you get to this conclusion?

Second:

I think that right now it's hard to talk about other applications to the Ethereum blockchain because of the prices of gas, but there are web3 opportunities to solve lots of problems outside of finance: identity, cybersecurity, internet protocol, art, and a bunch of things that I'm not smart enough to think about.

How do you frame these opportunities? Could it ever be meaningful for ETH capitalization (share of gas paid to stakers)?

--

I read a lot about ETH on Bankless Substack and I am quite convinced about this sentence "If there is meaningful demand for the world finance to go trustless, we'll see today's ETH price as a steal".

I'm not convinced that there's meaningful demand for trustless finance. I didn't form my mind.