Will Ethereum Recapture Bitcoin’s Throne? A Key Metric Hints at Potential Gains

Ethereum’s current undervaluation compared to Bitcoin, a trend last witnessed in 2019, suggests potential upside for the cryptocurrency. But several structural hurdles may hinder its success. A historical analysis of Ethereum’s price cycles reveals past opportunities for substantial gains; however, challenges such as supply pressure and weak demand could limit ETH’s ability to repeat these patterns. 2017, 2018, and 2019 saw similar conditions lead to steep Ethereum rallies driven by speculative inflows and altcoin rotations. However, this current cycle presents a different landscape. Despite Ethereum’s undervaluation, structural headwinds have created uncertainty, hindering its ability to follow past mean-reversion trends. The market is currently dominated by Bitcoin’s narrative, fueled by ETF flows and institutional investors, creating an environment where ETH faces stiff competition. Ethereum’s recent all-time high in supply at 120.7 million ETH further signifies potential selling pressure, particularly given the lack of consistent burning activity or strong demand absorption. Unlike previous years when scarcity drove price growth, this time inflationary pressure might limit ETH’s upside compared to Bitcoin. The decline in burned fees has had a significant impact; Ethereum’s total supply is no longer shrinking and network usage has been largely stagnant since 2021. Key metrics like active addresses and transaction volume haven’t seen sustainable growth, suggesting user adoption may be plateauing. On the positive side, large withdrawals from Binance have occurred recently, sometimes preceding bullish price movements in Ethereum as a sign of accumulation. Large outflows like this indicate lower selling pressure, potentially creating a supply squeeze. However, it is important to note that not all large withdrawals are guaranteed to trigger a rally; they can also serve as safe havens during uncertain times. The next few days will be critical in determining whether these recent withdrawals signal genuine accumulation or simply cautionary behavior.