This was originally recorded as an X space on June 9, 2025. You can listen behind the paywall as well as read my rebuttal of his “cheap utility” thesis.
First off, big thanks to Vin for taking the time to speak with me. I’m glad I got the chance to hear more about his MUSD stablecoin project, and also pick his brain on some of his bigger-picture thoughts on crypto.
While it’s clear we have very different perspectives on crypto’s future, I think conversations like these are both valuable and necessary. I wouldn’t want to limit myself to only speaking with those who think the same way as I do, because it’s important to challenge our assumptions from time to time, and ensure we’re not operating in an echo chamber.
I also want to make clear that I’m definitely rooting for MUSD to succeed, not only because I think it could help the people of Tinian, but also to bring more attention to eCash (XEC). My hope is that it will show other entrepreneurs that the eCash network is secure and reliable, and offers a strong foundation to build on top of. Because I believe the more a network is used, the more valuable it will become, which brings us to what Vin and I talked about during the second part of our interview.
Most people in crypto believe in what some refer to as the “number go up” theory. Basically, the idea is that as more people use a given chain, the greater the demand for its native token, and since the total supply is fixed, the increased demand will lead to the price going up.
This also aligns with those who believe in the prospect of “hyperbitcoinization,” where one day Bitcoin takes over as the global reserve currency. In other words, if Bitcoin (or some other cryptocurrency such as eCash) were to become the dominant form of money used around the world, its market cap would have to rise to the same level as the total value of all the currencies that exist today.
But Vin’s not buying it.
In fact, he believes the exact opposite. He calls it the “cheap utility” thesis, but I think you could also call it the “number go down” thesis. His take is that the more useful a blockchain becomes, the lower its token price goes, and the lower the price, the more useful the token is.
At first, I had a hard time wrapping my head around that. But after talking to him, I think I get what he’s trying to say, even if I don’t agree with it.
To support his hypothesis, he pointed to the fact that whenever a chain gets expensive, someone forks it and makes a cheaper version that ends up being more useful. Like, Bitcoin (BTC) is barely usable for actual transactions now, whereas Bitcoin Cash (BCH) or eCash (XEC) are faster and cheaper, and therefore more “useful” but much less valuable. Same goes for Ethereum versus Polygon (MATIC) or Tron, and he sees this pattern as proof that utility and high token prices don’t go hand in hand.
But here’s where I find holes in his argument. Just because something can be useful for something doesn’t mean people are actually using it for that purpose. Bitcoin isn’t good for daily payments today, but that’s not why people are buying it today. I think it’s clear that most people today treat BTC more as an investment or speculative asset much like gold. So yes, maybe a chain can be technically more useful for payments, but if people aren’t looking to make payments with crypto in the first place, that utility doesn’t translate into price.
There’s also historic evidence. Back in the early Bitcoin days, people were using it as a medium of exchange, and the price shot up from basically nothing to over $1,000. That sure sounds like “number go up” to me.
I believe that if people start using eCash for real transactions, we’ll see a similar price trajectory. The price won’t go down because it’s being used more, it’ll go up, just like it did with BTC in the early days.
What I think Vin is missing is that the reason his “cheap utility” thesis may seem like it’s true is because thus far, no blockchain has ever really managed to scale and keep fees low at the same time. Bitcoin didn’t. Ethereum didn’t. They both got clogged and expensive so people moved to cheaper forks and layer twos.
But eCash is trying to actually solve this. The whole idea behind it is to scale massively while keeping fees low. If it can pull that off, then we might finally see a chain that’s both useful and valuable, breaking the pattern Vin’s pointing to.
Vin also argued that the only real use case for crypto right now is sending around tokenized dollars. To be fair, USD stablecoins dominate trading activity today and supports his view. He argued that Bitcoin’s value only went up in the early days when it was being used as a medium of exchange because it didn’t have to compete with stablecoins. But now that we have things like USDT and USDC, people just default to those for payments since they’re more stable and predictable.
Vin even compared the dollar to the metric system saying it’s what everything’s valued in. In his view, trying to replace the dollar is like trying to replace meters and kilograms and it’s just not going to happen.
He’s got a point. Crypto is volatile, and yes, most people would rather get paid in dollars than gamble with token prices. But I still think there’s a chance he’s wrong.
The question is, how can we get people to use crypto the way it was originally intended, as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system? If we think of Satoshi launching eCash as step one, and eCash becoming a global reserve currency as step three, what needs to happen in step two to get us there?
That remains to be seen, and my answer to that question will have to come in a separate article, but I think projects like PayButton, Firma, XECx, and of course, MUSD, are examples of what could help eCash increase adoption.
To summarize, Vin believes that as a chain becomes useful, and usage increases, the demand for block space goes up, and fees start rising, but since people don’tlike high fees, they stop using the chain. This causes them to move to a cheaper alternative, and the new chain becomes the useful one, with a cheaper token price.
But here’s where I think his argument is flawed. The usage itself isn’t what’s driving prices down. While he is pointing to a pattern of high prices leading to high fees leading to people migrating away and the price collapsing, that to me doesn’t mean high usage leading to a lower price.
What Vin is describing isn’t price falling because of usage, but high fees driving a specific type of user away, and the project failing to hold on to that usage.
But I believe we’ve seen this phenomenon only because, so far, no blockchain has successfully kept fees low as usage scaled up. Bitcoin didn’t scale, which led to high fees, which led to it abandoning the payments use case to instead focus on the store of value use case.
But if a chain can actually scale and keep fees low and absorb demand, then high usage will lead to higher demand for the native token to pay for transaction fees. Usage can continue to rise since fees remain low despite the rising price, and the “cheap utility” thesis breaks down.
To me, that’s the eCash theory. We’re betting that scaling the network can finally change the game, allowing a blockchain to be both useful and valuable at the same time.
I also didn’t resonate with Vin’s perspective and your clarification here was very helpful.
Here’s a revised version:
“I share his enthusiasm for eCash and envision a future where it’s widely accepted and seamlessly integrated into everyday transactions, enabling effortless payments in any currency.”