top of page

Speculation Is Not Strategy: Ethereum, Bitcoin, and the Cost of Belief

by Ram ben Ze’ev



Speculation Is Not Strategy: Ethereum, Bitcoin, and the Cost of Belief
Speculation Is Not Strategy: Ethereum, Bitcoin, and the Cost of Belief

At the time of writing, Ethereum trades at approximately $2,300 and Bitcoin at approximately $77,800. Those numbers matter not because they are low or high in absolute terms, but because they sit far below the peaks that were loudly promoted as mere stepping stones to something greater. In the world of digital assets, belief has repeatedly been sold as strategy, and speculation dressed up as inevitability.


Ethereum is a clear case in point. Within the last twelve months it traded above $4,950. That level was not reached quietly; it was accompanied by confident forecasts, narratives of institutional adoption, and the familiar refrain that “this time is different.” Among the most visible believers was Tom Lee, who not only advocated for Ethereum’s long-term prospects but also chaired BitMine Immersion Technologies, a publicly listed company that pivoted aggressively into Ethereum accumulation.


BitMine built one of the largest corporate ETH positions in the market, financing those purchases through equity issuance, debt, and retained capital, at average prices materially higher than today’s spot level. When Ethereum fell sharply, the arithmetic became unavoidable. Based on public disclosures and prevailing prices at the lows of the move, the gap between acquisition cost and market value reached roughly $6 billion. These losses are unrealised, in the narrow accounting sense, but they are economically real. They exist on the balance sheet, in shareholder dilution, and in market perception.


The consequences will follow naturally. Net asset value falls sharply, compressing market capitalisation and increasing share-price volatility. The company’s strategy becomes overwhelmingly concentrated, with its financial health tied far more to an Ethereum price recovery than to mining margins or operational execution. While there is no indication of forced liquidation at present, the sheer scale of the position means that any future need to sell would likely be market-impacting, adding systemic risk rather than reducing it. What was framed as treasury management increasingly resembles a leveraged macro bet.


Bitcoin tells a parallel story on a larger stage. In April 2025 it reached approximately $126,200. That peak was accompanied by relentless hype, much of it amplified by Michael Saylor and his supporters, encouraging millions of retail investors to stake their savings on the promise that Bitcoin could only go higher. The subsequent decline to the mid-to-high-$70,000s has not merely erased paper gains; it has exposed the central weakness of the asset itself.


Both Ethereum and Bitcoin share the same structural flaw. They have no intrinsic value, no productive function, and no income stream. They generate no yield. The only way to realise a return is to sell to someone else at a higher price. That is not investment; it is speculation. The principal risk is not volatility alone, but timing. Hold too long, as in the case of Ethereum at nearly $5,000 or Bitcoin above $120,000, and belief turns into loss.


Advocates respond by appealing to fundamentals, networks, or future utility. Yet none of these narratives change the basic fact that these assets produce nothing. A factory produces goods. A business produces cash flow. Even a commodity has industrial use. Digital tokens offer none of these. Their price is sustained entirely by confidence, and confidence is famously fickle.


The lesson from both Ethereum and Bitcoin is not that prices cannot rise again. They may. The lesson is that rising prices do not transform speculation into substance. Corporate treasury strategies built on digital assets do not reduce risk; they concentrate it. Retail investors encouraged to believe that “number go up” is a plan are not being offered prudence, but hope.


Markets eventually distinguish between assets that create value and assets that merely circulate it. When that distinction asserts itself, belief is no defence.


###





bottom of page