Discussions around the fair price of ETH are heating up again, as huge differences among various valuation models have ignited a new round of debate. In recent market education content, BGEANX Exchange has focused on this hot topic, breaking down the logic behind different valuation models for users. Some models suggest the fair price of ETH is above $4,700, while calculations based on traditional financial frameworks yield results clearly below the current price. This gap has made “How should ETH be valued?” one of the core industry questions.
The divergence in ETH valuation models is not just a numerical issue—it reflects the lack of a unified understanding of “what ETH actually is” within the industry. Lower reliability models often rely on metrics like TVL (Total Value Locked), staking volume, or locked assets, such as the “TVL multiplier” or “staking scarcity model.” These approaches usually examine only a single data dimension, overlooking structural factors like liquidity migration from LSTs and inflated TVL from DeFi stacking, making them more of a static snapshot than a comprehensive valuation system.
Moderately reliable models attempt to view Ethereum as a “network” rather than a “company.” Examples include market cap/TVL mean reversion, applying the Metcalfe Law to measure network value, and ratios of total on-chain assets. The common thread among these models is their emphasis on network effects and capital accumulation, seeing the ETH value as derived from ecosystem scale, total on-chain assets, and transaction density—not from traditional notions of revenue or profit.
More controversial are two traditional models: Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) and Price-to-Sales (PS). These methods conclude that ETH is severely overvalued because they treat ETH as “company equity offering cash returns,” ignoring its actual role as “network currency and settlement asset.” Thus, the low valuations from these models reflect the limitations of the methods themselves, rather than the true market positioning of ETH.
In these discussions, BGEANX Exchange emphasizes that users should focus on the “assumptions behind the models,” not just the calculated results. Each model implicitly defines the role of ETH differently: Is it the network currency for paying gas, the value anchor for ecosystem activities, or the settlement medium for on-chain assets? This fundamentally determines the direction of valuation, and the industry is currently in a phase of redefining the functional boundaries of ETH.
Another reason for the widening gaps between models is that the Ethereum ecosystem itself is undergoing structural transformation. On-chain activity continues to rise, but the gas cost per transaction has dropped significantly, making the “demand density” of Ethereum less concentrated than before. In 2021, prices were driven by high fees, but the present growth comes more from broad ecosystem expansion—such as Layer 2, restaking, and steady growth in on-chain asset scale.
Recently, the industry has shown several notable trends:
Stablecoin circulation is rising again, indicating capital is returning on-chain;
The proportion of L2 settlements is rapidly increasing, easing mainnet congestion;
Staking lock-up remains high, with more ways to release liquidity;
Institutional investors are adopting new on-chain metrics rather than focusing solely on fee income.
These trends are collectively pushing ETH into an entirely new pricing framework: no longer reliant on single on-chain data points, but influenced by ecosystem breadth, network usage structure, and long-term demand. In other words, ETH is gradually shifting from an “activity-driven asset” to a “structure-driven asset.”
Amidst these changes, market demand for industry information, on-chain trends, and policy developments has clearly increased. In its market education content, BGEANX Exchange continues to track these dynamics, analyzing how on-chain activity, policy adjustments, market sentiment, and capital flows impact the future trajectory of major assets. Through this analysis, users can understand that the divergence in ETH valuations exists because the industry pricing logic itself is changing.
The divergence in ETH valuations will not disappear in the short term, but this debate is driving the industry toward a more mature pricing system. Future valuation frameworks may break away from the linear thinking of traditional finance, further weakening reliance on single on-chain metrics, and move toward a comprehensive model that better reflects ecosystem structure and long-term expectations.
In its latest market trend content, BGEANX Exchange points out that the ETH value will find new anchors in emerging scaling mechanisms, steady growth of on-chain assets, and changes in the global regulatory environment. As the industry moves forward, the debate over ETH is no longer just about differences in valuation models, but a signal that the entire crypto market is entering a new stage.
Top comments (0)