Duo Nine, founder of YCC and a seasoned crypto educator who’s been in the Bitcoin space since 2014, has sparked an intense debate with his bold prediction about Ethereum’s future. Is Ethereum, the once indomitable force in decentralised finance, losing its grip as apps like Uniswap break free from its ecosystem? Are we witnessing the beginning of the end for Ethereum’s dominance as Unichain’s rise promises to change the game? According to Duo Nine, Ethereum holders could be in for a rude awakening. But is this truly a death knell, or just another chapter in Ethereum’s storied history of adaptation and survival?
His take is simple yet provocative: Uniswap, one of Ethereum’s most lucrative decentralised applications (dApps), has launched its own Layer 2 (L2) solution, cutting transaction fees by a staggering 100x. The fees that once created demand for Ethereum’s native token are now funnelled into Uniswap’s pocket, and Duo Nine argues that this move signals a wider shift in the crypto world. But how much of a threat is Unichain, really? And can Ethereum evolve fast enough to counteract the exodus of its own dApps?
The Crux of the Argument
Duo Nine’s argument hinges on the idea that Ethereum’s value is tightly tied to its ability to generate fees through its infrastructure. For years, users of dApps like Uniswap were forced to pay high transaction fees, fuelling demand for ETH tokens. Now, with Unichain’s launch, those fees have been slashed, potentially rendering Ethereum obsolete in the eyes of both users and developers.
This is not about Uniswap alone. Multiply that fee reduction by all the major dApps in Ethereum’s ecosystem, and you have a recipe for disaster—or so says Duo Nine. In his view, Ethereum’s days of being the go-to network for decentralised applications may be numbered. The real question now is whether Ethereum can adapt before its own apps leave it in the dust.
But not everyone in the crypto space is buying Duo Nine’s doomsday prediction.
Reactions from the Community
The Ethereum community have been quick to respond, with reactions ranging from support to outright mockery. MartyParty, for example, agrees with Duo Nine, predicting that dApps like Uniswap will eventually detach from Ethereum entirely and become Layer 1 (L1) chains in their own right. This would see Ethereum bleeding liquidity into new ecosystems as it clings to its shrinking relevance.
On the other hand, critics like Hedgex and gphummer.eth have called Duo Nine’s take shallow and misinformed. Gphummer.eth, in particular, argues that Ethereum will always retain its value as the ultimate settlement and security layer for global decentralised finance. He points out that while app-specific chains like Unichain may gain traction, they will still need Ethereum for final settlement and data availability. In his view, Ethereum will remain the backbone of decentralised finance, even if some dApps venture out on their own.
Is Ethereum Really at Risk?
The big question here is whether Unichain and similar L2 solutions truly pose an existential threat to Ethereum. While it’s true that high fees have been a pain point for Ethereum users, many argue that the network’s security and decentralisation are worth the price. Ethereum’s shift to Layer 2 chains was meant to solve its scaling problem, but Duo Nine argues that it has backfired, causing users to flee to cheaper, faster alternatives.
But Ethereum is not just a dApp platform—it’s an entire ecosystem with deep liquidity, developer support, and community backing. Could all of that really crumble because a few apps launch their own chains? And even if these apps do migrate, will they leave Ethereum behind entirely, or continue to use it as a settlement layer, as gphummer.eth suggests?
The Bitcoin Factor
Duo Nine also draws a sharp contrast between Ethereum and Bitcoin, noting that while Ethereum faces these challenges, Bitcoin remains unscathed. Bitcoin, he argues, is not infrastructure—it’s money. It doesn’t compete with dApps or other chains and therefore doesn’t face the same existential threats as Ethereum. In his view, Bitcoin’s position as a store of value is only strengthening, as evidenced by the inflows into Bitcoin ETFs compared to Ethereum’s negative numbers.
This raises another critical question: is Ethereum doomed to always play second fiddle to Bitcoin? Bitcoin’s simplicity may be its greatest strength, allowing it to sidestep the technical complexities that Ethereum now faces with L2 chains, appchains, and fee structures. But can Ethereum find a way to reassert its dominance, or will it be overtaken by simpler, more user-friendly chains?
Changing Landscape
Duo Nine’s analysis certainly paints a grim picture, but it also highlights the fast-evolving nature of DeFi and the crypto space in general. Appchains like Unichain represent a shift toward more specialised, streamlined solutions that don’t require users to engage with high-fee networks like Ethereum. However, Ethereum has proven its resilience time and again, weathering challenges from rivals like Solana and maintaining its status as the most used blockchain for decentralised applications.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: Ethereum is at a crossroads. It must either find a way to retain its dApp developers or risk becoming just another piece of outdated infrastructure. Can Ethereum innovate quickly enough to stay relevant, or will Unichain and other L2 solutions force it into the background? The market, as Duo Nine says, has already made its decision once—will it do so again?
For now, Ethereum holders are left with more questions than answers.
