I'm not an economist myself but Vitaliks reasoning in regards to valueing cryptos seems unsound: For example, Ethereum’s transaction fees tend to be about $500

I'm not an economist myself but Vitaliks reasoning in regards to valueing cryptos seems unsound: For example, Ethereum’s transaction fees tend to be about $500,000 a day recently, which is about $180 million a year. If you tried to value the ether market cap as some kind of corporation, then the “P/E ratio” is only somewhere in the low 200s, which is high for a company, but not off-the-charts absurdly high. Those transaction fees are revenues and NOT earnings. I have no idea how profitable ETH mining is but earnings are going to be significantly less after including operating costs (hardware and energy mostly). Also being somewhat new and still unproven, I would add a hefty risk premium to the discount factor. All in all I would say that a P/E of 50 would be optimistic and dependant on getting a lot more transaction throughput. Based on that you could argue that ETH is currently overvalued by a factor of maybe 10-30. There’s also this model of store of value, where people hold it because they expect more people to hold it in the future, and because people keep getting richer and the population keeps growing. As long as prices grow slow enough, it can be stable in the long term. Duh?! That suspiciouly sounds like the definition of a pyramid scheme?