Metcalfe's Law "Bankruptcy": Why Has Cryptocurrency Been Overvalued?

Original Article Title: Crypto Is Priced for Network Effects It Doesn't Have

Original Article Author: Santiago Roel Santos, Founder of Inversion

Original Article Translation: AididiaoJP, Foresight News

The Dilemma of Cryptocurrency's Network Effects

My previous take on the "cryptocurrency trading price far exceeding its fundamentals" has sparked discussions. The strongest opposition comes not from usage or fees, but from a difference in ideology:

· "Cryptocurrency is not a business"

· "Blockchain follows Metcalfe's Law"

· "The core value lies in network effects"

As someone who witnessed the rise of Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, I am well aware that early-stage internet products faced the same valuation puzzle. However, a pattern gradually emerged: as more users joined the social circle, the product's value experienced explosive growth. User retention strengthened, engagement deepened, and the flywheel effect became evident in the experience.

This is the true embodiment of network effects.

If one argues that "cryptocurrency value should be evaluated from a network rather than a company perspective," then let us delve deeper.

Upon closer inspection, an undeniable issue has surfaced: Metcalfe's Law not only fails to support the current valuation but also exposes its fragility.

The Misunderstood "Network Effect"

Most of the so-called "network effects" in the cryptocurrency field are actually negative effects:

· User growth leading to deteriorating user experience

· Soaring transaction fees

· Exacerbated network congestion

The more profound issue lies in:

· The open-source nature leading to developer attrition

· Liquidity being profit-driven

· User Cross-Chain Migration Followed by Incentive Measures

· Institution Platform Switch Based on Short-Term Gains

Successful networks have never operated this way; Facebook did not experience a drop in user experience when adding tens of millions of new users.

But the New Blockchain Has Solved the Throughput Issue

While this has indeed alleviated congestion, it has not addressed the fundamental issue of network effects. Increasing throughput merely eliminates friction; it does not create composite value.

The fundamental contradiction still exists:

· Liquidity may drain

· Developers may migrate

· Users may exit

· Code can be forked

· Weak value capture capability

Scalability enhancement improves availability, not inevitability.

The Truth Revealed by Fees

If an L1 blockchain truly has network effects, it should capture the majority of the value like iOS, Android, Facebook, or Visa. The reality is:

· L1 captures 90% of the total market value

· Fee share dropped from 60% to 12%

· DeFi contributes 73% of fees

· However, its valuation is less than 10%

The market is still pricing based on the "Fat Protocol Theory," but the data points to the opposite conclusion: L1 is overvalued, applications are undervalued, and the ultimate value will aggregate to the user layer.

User Valuation Comparison

Using a common metric, the value per user is:

Meta (Facebook)

· 3.1 billion monthly active users

· $1.5 trillion market value

· Per-user value of $400-500

Cryptocurrency (Excluding Bitcoin)

· $1 Trillion Market Cap

· 400 Million General Users → $2,500 / User

· 100 Million Active Users → $9,000 / User

· 40 Million On-chain Users → $23,000 / User

Valuation Level Reached:

· Optimistic Estimate Premium 5x

· Strict Standard Premium 20x

· On-chain Activity-based Premium 50x

And Meta can be considered the most efficient monetization engine in the consumer technology field.

Analysis on Development Stage

The argument of "Facebook was also like this in the early days" is worth discussing. Although Facebook also lacked revenue in its early days, its product had already built:

· Daily usage habits

· Social connections

· Identity verification

· Community affiliation

· Value enhancement brought by user growth

In contrast, the core product of cryptocurrency is still speculation, which leads to:

· Rapid user influx

· Higher churn rate

· Lack of stickiness

· No habitual usage

· No improvement with scale

Unless cryptocurrency becomes "Invisible Infrastructure," a foundational service that users are unaware of, network effects will be difficult to self-reinforce.

This is not a maturity issue but a product essence issue.

Metcalf's Law Misconceptions

The law describing value ≈ n² is certainly appealing, but its assumptions have biases:

· Deep interaction between users (actually rare)

· Network should have stickiness (actually lacking)

· Value should aggregate upwards (actually dispersed)

· Existence of conversion costs (actually very low)

· Building a moat through scale (not yet evident)

Most cryptocurrencies do not meet these premises.

Implications of the Key Variable k Value

In the V=k·n² model, the k value represents:

· Monetization efficiency

· Level of trust

· Depth of engagement

· Retention capability

· Conversion costs

· Ecosystem maturity

The k values for Facebook and Tencent range from 10⁻⁹ to 10⁻⁷ due to their massive network scales.

Estimated k values for cryptocurrency (based on $1 trillion market cap):

· 400 million users → k≈10⁻⁶

· 100 million users → k≈10⁻⁵

· 40 million users → k≈10⁻⁴

This implies that the market assumes a much higher value per crypto user compared to a Facebook user, despite lower retention rates, monetization capabilities, and stickiness. This is no longer early optimism but rather overextending into the future.

Current State of Real Network Effects

Cryptocurrencies actually possess:

Bilateral network effects (users↔developers↔liquidity)

Platform effects (standards, tools, composability)

These effects indeed exist but are fragile: easily forked, slow to scale, far from achieving the n² network effect of Facebook, WeChat, or Visa.

A Rational Look at Future Prospects

The vision of an Internet built on a cryptographic network is indeed attractive, but it is necessary to be clear about:

1. This future may not be realized until the present moment,

2. The current economic model does not reflect

The current value distribution presents:

· Cost flowing to the application layer rather than L1

· Users controlled by exchanges and wallets

· MEV capturing surplus value

· Forks weakening competitive barriers

· L1 struggling to solidify created value

Value capture is currently transitioning from the base layer to the application layer to the user aggregation layer, which is beneficial to users, but a premium should not be paid for this.

Characteristics of a Mature Network Effect

A healthy network should exhibit:

· Stable liquidity

· Developer ecosystem concentration

· Increased base layer fee capture

· Continuous retention of institutional users

· Growth in cross-cycle retention rates

· Composability to defend against forks

Currently, Ethereum is showing initial signs, Solana is gearing up, and most public chains are still far apart.

Conclusion: Valuation Judgment Based on Network Effect Logic

If crypto users:

· Have lower stickiness

· Have more difficulty monetizing

· Have higher churn rates

Then their unit value should be lower than that of Facebook users, rather than 5-50 times higher. The current valuation has priced in network effects that have not yet materialized, and the market pricing seems to assume that a strong effect already exists, when in fact it does not, at least not yet.

Original Article Link