Academy

The idea of corporations adopting Bitcoin as a treasury asset gained traction after high-profile moves by companies like MicroStrategy, Tesla, and most recently, GameStop in 2024. With fiat currencies susceptible to inflation and global uncertainty around interest rates, Bitcoin is increasingly seen as a hedge against traditional monetary risks. By shifting part of their reserves into Bitcoin, companies aim to preserve purchasing power and benefit from long-term appreciation, especially in a climate where central banks continue to print money and dilute the value of national currencies.

One of the key values this brings to corporations is diversification of treasury holdings. Traditionally, treasury assets include cash, government bonds, or money market funds—safe, but low-yielding. Bitcoin introduces a higher-risk, high-reward dynamic. For companies with strong cash flow and risk appetite, this can create significant upside potential. Bitcoin’s scarcity—capped at 21 million coins—makes it a deflationary asset, which appeals to corporate treasurers looking for a store of value that is immune to government manipulation.

Another benefit is strategic signaling. Adopting Bitcoin sends a message that the company is forward-thinking, innovation-driven, and aligned with digital trends. This has branding power, especially among younger investors, tech-savvy customers, and Web3-oriented partners. GameStop’s 2024 move into Bitcoin was not just financial; it was cultural—aligning with a community that values decentralization and alternative finance. This can help reposition a company and reinvigorate its public image, particularly if it’s seen as stagnant or out of touch.

However, holding Bitcoin isn’t without risk. One major problem is volatility. Unlike fiat currencies or short-term bonds, Bitcoin can swing wildly in value. A company that buys Bitcoin at a peak could see its balance sheet take a major hit during a downturn, affecting investor confidence and possibly triggering regulatory scrutiny. This makes Bitcoin a risky store of value unless managed with strong risk controls and long-term vision.

Accounting treatment is another issue. Under current financial reporting rules in many countries, Bitcoin is classified as an intangible asset. That means losses must be reported when the price drops, but gains can only be recognized upon sale. This creates an asymmetric accounting problem where companies are punished for volatility but can’t report upside unless they liquidate—a mismatch that doesn’t reflect the real market value of their holdings.

There’s also the issue of regulatory uncertainty. Different countries are taking radically different approaches to cryptocurrency. Some are embracing it, while others are cracking down. If regulations shift unexpectedly, companies could face legal, tax, or reputational risks. For example, holding Bitcoin in jurisdictions that impose strict capital controls or crypto bans could expose companies to compliance failures, fines, or asset seizures.

In a more strategic sense, corporate adoption of Bitcoin may also introduce governance tensions. Boards, investors, and stakeholders may not all agree on the role of crypto in a company’s financial strategy. While some may see it as visionary, others may view it as speculative or irresponsible. This can create internal conflict or distract from core business objectives. Companies need a clear policy, rationale, and communication strategy to align stakeholders and mitigate backlash.

In the bigger picture, the adoption of Bitcoin by major corporations helps legitimize the asset class and accelerate mainstream adoption. It creates a positive feedback loop: as more companies buy in, the market matures, infrastructure improves, and volatility potentially declines. But it’s not a silver bullet—it’s a bold move that requires clear understanding of both the opportunities and the risks. When done right, it can add strategic value. When done poorly, it can backfire hard.

Ethereum has long held the crown as the leading smart contract platform, underpinning much of the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem, NFTs, and many Web3 applications. But in 2024, Ethereum is facing serious heat. Its dominance is no longer a given. With its price dropping by 40% in just a few months, and sentiment shifting toward faster, more scalable blockchains like Solana, Avalanche, and newer layer-1s, Ethereum is now at a critical juncture. This moment isn’t just about price — it’s about whether Ethereum can adapt or risk being outpaced.

The value Ethereum brings to the table is still significant. It’s the most battle-tested blockchain for smart contracts, with the deepest developer ecosystem, a massive amount of capital locked in its ecosystem, and a robust track record for security. For developers, this means a mature platform with reliable tools and a community that constantly pushes innovation. For users, Ethereum provides trust — the kind that can’t be spun up overnight by a competitor. Even institutional players feel more confident building on Ethereum than on chains with less history.

However, Ethereum’s core problem is scalability — and that’s been true for years. Gas fees are still high during periods of network congestion, and transaction throughput is low compared to newer competitors. Yes, Ethereum 2.0 (with its shift to proof of stake and eventual full sharding implementation) aims to fix that. But those upgrades have been slow to roll out. In the meantime, users and developers are voting with their feet and wallets, increasingly moving to chains where speed and cost are no longer bottlenecks.

This creates a paradox: Ethereum’s stability and decentralization are its strengths, but also its weaknesses. Competitors like Solana are making trade-offs on decentralization to achieve speed, and many users seem willing to accept that compromise for better UX and lower costs. Ethereum’s roadmap — though ambitious — is being scrutinized for delays and infighting within the developer community. While Ethereum focuses on slow, careful evolution, others are pivoting, innovating, and shipping fast.

That said, Ethereum’s modular approach may ultimately win out. Layer 2 scaling solutions like Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync offer faster and cheaper transactions while still benefiting from Ethereum’s security layer. If these scaling solutions can offer a seamless user experience, Ethereum could maintain its role as the "base layer" of Web3. But this hinges on user adoption, better interoperability, and improved onboarding — things Ethereum has struggled with historically.

The competitive pressure is not just technical — it’s cultural and economic. Memecoins, new NFTs, and decentralized apps are being launched on non-Ethereum chains. Developers are choosing chains where user bases are more active, fees are negligible, and developer grants are plentiful. This is the real threat: Ethereum may still be the gold standard, but gold isn’t always the most flexible or practical tool for every job.

The broader value of Ethereum’s current moment is that it signals the maturation of the blockchain space. Ethereum isn’t the only option anymore, and that’s a good thing for innovation. Competition pushes the ecosystem forward. It forces Ethereum to focus on UX, developer support, and clearer governance. It also means that different blockchains may end up specializing — Ethereum for DeFi, Solana for consumer apps, others for gaming or enterprise.

But this shift also brings a problem: fragmentation. As more chains gain market share, users are split across platforms, liquidity is divided, and developers have to build for multiple chains. This complexity could slow down mass adoption. Ethereum, once the default, is now part of a crowded race. Whether it reclaims dominance or settles into a specific role depends on how fast it can solve its scaling bottlenecks — and how well it can hold onto the trust it built over the past decade.