Loading article…
The case for Ethereum as shared infrastructure: open participation, verifiable rules and applications that work together.
Our ability to create powerful technology is growing faster than our ability to manage trust.
AI is making it easier to build software, automate work and create convincing content. It is also giving attackers new ways to impersonate people and scale scams. Meanwhile, the software, dependencies and services businesses rely on keep changing.
Every tool brings dependencies, integrations, permissions and updates. A business can rely on dozens of services without being able to inspect how they work or how securely they connect.
For a small business, keeping up is a job of its own. Which tools can you trust? What needs updating? Is a payment request genuine? Who has access to what? Most teams cannot track every change, audit every service or employ a security specialist for every system they use.
Established systems face the same pressure. Banks, payment providers and software platforms have more resources, but they still maintain old infrastructure, connect separate databases and protect access to sensitive records. Every connection adds another place where permissions, reconciliation or trust can break down.
There is a longer-term challenge beneath all of this: the cryptography used to prove identity and authorize actions must also evolve. A sufficiently capable quantum computer could break widely used public-key cryptographic schemes. The timing is uncertain, but preparing systems to migrate takes time. NIST's post-quantum cryptography programme addresses that transition.
This challenge reaches banks, governments and blockchains, including Ethereum. Decentralization alone does not make a network quantum-resistant. The question is whether its cryptography, software and users can migrate safely as the threat changes.
Small businesses cannot each become experts in cybersecurity, cryptography and identity verification. Shared standards and independently verifiable records could reduce what every team has to build and maintain. Sharing that foundation also means deciding how access should work.
If everyone builds on the same foundation, who gets to control it? Technical security is only part of the problem. Access also depends on political decisions and the companies that operate our digital services.
Freedom House's Freedom on the Net 2025 report recorded a fifteenth consecutive year of declining global internet freedom, describing repression in authoritarian states and growing constraints on digital expression in democracies.
In China, censorship operates through both network controls and platform moderation. Freedom House's 2025 country report documents thousands of blocked domains and the removal of posts criticizing a digital identity system.
In Russia, Human Rights Watch reported in August 2026 that authorities had blocked WhatsApp, Telegram and FaceTime, while also targeting VPNs. Restrictions reach everyday communication tools, not just political websites.
In Iran, Amnesty International reported in May 2026 an 88-day internet shutdown, followed by restoration with restrictions on 26 May.
In France, the government blocked TikTok in New Caledonia during unrest in May 2024. On 1 April 2025, the Conseil d’État ruled the measure disproportionate and unlawful.
France's democracy classification has also fluctuated. The EIU's 2024 Democracy Index downgraded it from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy.” The 2025 edition restored its “full democracy” classification, with France ranked 26th. These are broader assessments of democracy, rather than measures of internet censorship alone. The setback and subsequent recovery reinforce the need for safeguards that can withstand changes in political leadership.
In Türkiye, a country spanning Europe and Asia, Human Rights Watch documented in September 2025 approximately 21 hours of disruption to major social and messaging platforms in Istanbul. It also documented 42 hours of throttling during March protests.
These cases differ in severity, political context and legal safeguards. Judicial review matters, and restrictions on unlawful content are not automatically suppression of dissent. The common question is who can disconnect people, on what grounds and with what recourse.
For businesses, interrupted communication means interrupted operations and customer relationships. Ethereum cannot restore a connection shut off by the state. Decentralization can reduce dependence on additional gatekeepers once people can reach the network.
For Ethereum, censorship resistance means making it harder for an operator or coordinated group to prevent valid transactions from being included. It is about access to the network's execution and settlement, rather than a promise to host every kind of speech.
A website or remote node provider can still block a user. Another interface or a self-operated node can reduce dependence on that particular gateway. Ethereum's node documentation explains the role of independent access. Broadcasting a transaction does not guarantee its inclusion: validators, block builders and the infrastructure around them can still delay or filter transactions. Network access itself can also be disrupted.
That freedom has limits. An application can retain administrator powers, an asset issuer can include freezing controls and a hosted wallet can control access to keys. Public records do not guarantee privacy. The independence of the base network must be examined separately from the independence of each service built on it.
Taken together, these pressures point to a growing need: a shared digital space where people and businesses can coordinate without placing the entire foundation under one company or government's control.
By neutral, I mean a foundation whose published rules apply consistently, rather than access depending on a participant's political alignment or relationship with its operator. By decentralized, I mean that operating and verifying it is distributed, with practical alternatives when one provider refuses access.
Ethereum is a candidate for that role. To understand why, we need to look at how it lets people build, verify and interact on a common foundation.
On Ethereum, a developer can deploy a smart contract without asking a platform operator for approval. A contract is a program whose execution follows the network's rules. Access to a particular application can still be restricted by its own design, and businesses still have legal obligations. But the underlying network is open to builders. Ethereum's smart-contract documentation explains this permissionless model.
A conventional service usually asks you to accept its account of what happened. Ethereum lets participants run software that independently checks transactions and the resulting shared state. Nodes and clients explains how that verification works.
Ethereum applications can call one another's contracts and use the same shared records, subject to their permissions. Its open-source tools and published standards give builders common starting points. Connecting contracts also connects their risks: a flaw in one component can affect applications that depend on it. Ethereum's guide for builders discusses this combination of openness and composability.
Ethereum is maintained through multiple software implementations and a network of participants. This reduces dependence on one operator, but concentration among infrastructure providers and participants still matters. Openness makes inspection possible; it does not make every application secure.
A database remains a sensible choice for a business managing its own private information. Other blockchains can also support open applications. Ethereum's appeal to me is the combination of public verification, programmable agreements and an existing environment in which applications can interact.
Imagine an independent workshop that repairs bicycles, runs classes and offers an annual membership. It already has a website, booking software and an accounting system. Using Ethereum would make sense only where a shared record solves a concrete problem.
The workshop could issue a digital membership through a contract that records which account holds it and when it expires. Its booking service could check that record before applying a member benefit. A partner workshop could recognize the same membership without maintaining a separate copy of the ownership register.
The contract would need explicit rules for renewal, transfer and recovery. Control of an account would not, by itself, prove a customer's identity. The workshop would still decide what the membership entitles someone to and deliver the actual service.
A customer could pay an invoice using a stablecoin on an agreed network. The workshop's software could check the correct asset, recipient and amount, wait for the network's confirmation policy, and reconcile the transfer with its private invoice record. Both parties could refer to the same transaction instead of relying only on a screenshot or an email saying “paid.”
That record proves the transfer, not that a repair was completed or a dispute resolved. Stablecoins also introduce issuer and redemption dependencies; some issuers can freeze assets. Ethereum's explanation of open access describes that distinction. The workshop would still need appropriate accounting, payment and customer-support processes.
Suppose the workshop replaces its booking software. If it controls the necessary keys, the contracts permit access and the new software supports them, the replacement could read the same membership records. The workshop would not need to reissue every membership simply because it changed interfaces.
That continuity has to be designed in. A proprietary contract, a provider-controlled wallet or a missing integration can still create dependence. A shared network makes alternatives possible; software providers must make them usable.
Customer names, contact details, repair notes and invoice documents would remain in systems designed to protect them. The public record would contain only what the shared process needs, with care taken because even account activity can reveal relationships. Appointments, stock management and most daily work could continue in conventional software.
What gives me confidence is that Ethereum is an evolving ecosystem. Engineers maintain network software, researchers investigate security and scaling, and application developers turn shared infrastructure into tools people can use. Wallets, payment integrations and development libraries give the next team more to start from. The work of one team can become a building block for another.
This is the growth that matters: accumulated knowledge, reusable tools and useful applications. Participation fluctuates, as Electric Capital's developer reports document. The stronger signal is whether sustained development makes the ecosystem more capable and easier to use.
Customers should be able to book a class or use a membership without navigating network settings or unfamiliar signing requests. Developers are working on wallets that can support bundled actions, sponsored fees and recovery options. Ethereum's account-abstraction roadmap describes these possibilities. Their usefulness depends on how safely and clearly each product implements them.
Losing a device should not automatically mean losing the business. Recovery needs clear rules, usable safeguards and a careful choice of who can help restore access. Applications also need maintained dependencies, understandable permissions and safe upgrade procedures. Shared components can spread improvements, but they can also spread a defect. More code is valuable when it produces more dependable services.
The encouraging part is that these are concrete engineering and product problems that many teams can work on in parallel. Each useful improvement can lower the barrier for the next business and the next developer. That is why the ecosystem matters as much as the underlying protocol: Ethereum's promise becomes meaningful through the growing set of services people can actually rely on.
ETH is used to pay transaction fees on Ethereum, and validators stake it to help secure the network. These are concrete roles within the system, not shares in a company. Ethereum's introduction to ether explains those uses.
The investment thesis is that a more useful network could create more demand for the asset used to operate and secure it. That link is not automatic: applications and intermediaries can capture value, and more activity does not necessarily require users to hold proportionally more ETH.
Supply matters too. Ethereum issues ETH to validators and burns transaction base fees. The balance can increase or decrease the supply; permanent deflation is not guaranteed. Ethereum's explanation of issuance and burning describes that mechanism.
Price is where the thesis meets expectations. A useful network can still be an expensive investment if its price already assumes exceptional success. ETH can also lose value while the technology improves. Staking rewards do not remove that risk.
My conviction begins with the need for neutral infrastructure and the people building it. Each dependable tool and useful application can strengthen Ethereum's case as a foundation for others. That is why I see ETH as an investment worth considering: it has a direct role in a system whose capabilities can compound. The remaining test is whether that progress creates durable demand for ETH—and whether the price leaves room for the risks. Belief in the ecosystem starts the investment thesis; it does not complete it.