The Bitcoin ecosystem has experienced rapid growth over the past year. Many people were excited to hear that Bitcoin now supports "smart contracts," leading some to ask: "If Bitcoin, with its unparalleled consensus and robust network, introduces smart contracts, wouldn’t that make Ethereum and Solana obsolete?" This perspective is widespread, especially among newcomers and even some financial influencers. But is this really the case?
The Bitcoin Maximalist Perspective
For years, Bitcoin maximalists have held the belief that "there are only two types of cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin and altcoins." While Bitcoin enthusiasts stand firmly by this view, critics often dismiss it as overly simplistic.
This stubborn stance stems from Bitcoin’s consistent performance over time. Through multiple market cycles, Bitcoin has repeatedly proven its resilience, reinforcing a deeply held belief that Bitcoin’s direction is always right. If Bitcoin can integrate smart contracts and support decentralized applications (DApps) directly, why would we need Ethereum or Solana? This logic seems compelling at first glance.
Some argue that Ethereum and Solana represent generational technological innovations that should be embraced. However, Bitcoin maximalists counter that innovation often comes with risks and a higher likelihood of failure.
It’s About Direction, Not Just Bitcoin
While Bitcoin maximalists’ skepticism toward innovative projects like Ethereum and Solana isn’t entirely unfounded, they often overlook a critical point: Bitcoin itself was once an innovation compared to traditional financial systems and earlier electronic currency projects. Many Bitcoin supporters benefited precisely because they embraced this innovation early on.
So why the reluctance to support new innovations now? Perhaps it’s a case of risk aversion. After years of holding through volatility, many investors prefer to avoid high-risk innovations that could wipe out gains. The crypto space has seen countless promising projects collapse overnight, fostering a cautious mindset.
It’s worth noting that Bitcoin wasn’t the only electronic currency innovation of its time. Numerous organizations, including some with questionable intentions, proposed similar concepts. Some even claimed, "We can do everything Bitcoin can, and more." Yet, only Bitcoin achieved sustainable success.
Why did Bitcoin succeed where others failed? The same question applies to Ethereum and Solana. What allowed these projects to thrive?
Bitcoin gained widespread acceptance because its core philosophy addressed a critical need: using incentive mechanisms to enable open, large-scale human collaboration. It created a decentralized, transparent, and fair platform for storing value—a foundational principle of cryptocurrency.
Not all projects today adhere to these principles. Some are tailored solely for venture capital and investor hype, prioritizing efficiency over decentralization. While profitability is important, projects that prioritize short-term gains often end up exploiting users.
Crypto exists not for high performance or efficiency but for the decentralization, freedom, and transparency it offers. The focus should be on solving problems that Web2 cannot address and delivering tangible value.
As discussed in a previous article, Is the Hardest Bitcoin Bull Market About to End?: "Any industry that fails to uphold its core values and prioritizes ‘profiteering’ is doomed to fail. Those who lose sight of Bitcoin’s original purpose risk making severe misjudgments." This simple principle can help identify 90% of unsustainable projects in the market.
Bitcoin’s Growth Doesn’t Threaten Ethereum or Solana
1) Diverse Market Needs
Before Ethereum and Solana, Bitcoin coexisted with numerous early altcoins. This diversity reflects varied market demands. Projects can be broadly categorized into three types:
- Digital Gold
Bitcoin remains the only true digital gold. In today’s global landscape, the need for a decentralized store of value is undeniable. - Durable Goods
Ethereum and sustainable DeFi infrastructures address problems unsolvable by Web2. With EVM becoming the standard for most smart contract platforms, Ethereum has become an indispensable part of Web3. These projects offer long-term value. - Consumables
Meme coins capture emotional value but often have short lifespans. Like disposable goods, they shouldn’t be expected to provide lasting value.
The first two categories are suitable for medium-to-long-term holdings, while the third is inherently speculative.
2) Technological Innovation
Bitcoin’s integration of smart contracts isn’t a new idea. Early attempts, such as colored coins, date back years. However, implementing robust smart contracts without compromising Bitcoin’s core principles has always been challenging.
Vitalik Buterin initially proposed introducing smart contracts to Bitcoin but faced resistance from the core community. This led him to create Ethereum instead. While Bitcoin maintained a conservative technical roadmap, Ethereum pioneered innovations like smart contracts, Proof-of-Stake, EIP-1559, and Rollup Layer2 solutions.
Today, much of Bitcoin’s ecosystem relies on borrowed Ethereum technology, particularly Rollups. But is this approach suitable? ZK-Rollup, for example, was designed for Ethereum-like platforms. Bitcoin cannot natively verify zero-knowledge proofs, forcing some projects to rely on middleware like oracles. This is akin to "taping a bull’s horn to a horse’s head and calling it a unicorn."
Bitcoin Itself Doesn’t Support Smart Contracts
Current "Bitcoin smart contracts" are implemented through生态 projects, not Bitcoin itself. The Bitcoin protocol is unlikely to support smart contracts natively, as balancing digital gold purity with smart functionality is challenging.
Bitcoin’s UTXO model isn’t designed for complex state management like Ethereum’s account model. Additionally, rising transaction fees due to Bitcoin’s deflationary nature could hinder生态 growth.
While layered solutions enable smart contracts on Bitcoin, they often lag behind Ethereum in security, reliability, and scalability. Ethereum remains Bitcoin’s primary "exit" destination, with wrapped BTC (WBTC), tBTC, and Coinbase’s cbBTC actively participating in DeFi. From a layered perspective, Ethereum is already Bitcoin’s largest and most widely used sidechain.
Ethereum’s innovations in scalability, interoperability, and account abstraction continue to lead the industry, leaving many Bitcoin生态 projects playing catch-up.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are Bitcoin smart contracts?
Bitcoin smart contracts are implemented through secondary layers or sidechains, not the Bitcoin protocol itself. These solutions enable programmable transactions but rely on external infrastructure.
Can Bitcoin replace Ethereum?
Unlikely. Bitcoin focuses on being a decentralized store of value, while Ethereum specializes in programmable contracts and DApps. Both serve distinct purposes and can coexist.
Why is Ethereum considered Bitcoin’s largest sidechain?
Ethereum hosts wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC) and other Bitcoin-backed assets, enabling Bitcoin holders to participate in DeFi. This makes Ethereum a de facto sidechain for Bitcoin.
Are Bitcoin smart contracts secure?
Security varies by implementation. Layered solutions may introduce risks not present in native smart contract platforms like Ethereum.
What is the future of Bitcoin and Ethereum?
Both networks will likely continue evolving. Bitcoin remains the dominant store of value, while Ethereum leads in smart contracts and DApp innovation.
How can investors identify valuable projects?
Focus on projects that prioritize decentralization, transparency, and real-world utility over short-term hype.
Conclusion
The Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana ecosystems each have unique roles. As long as projects stay true to crypto’s core values—decentralization, transparency, and utility—there is room for multiple innovations to thrive. The future of Web3 isn’t a zero-sum game but a diverse landscape of complementary solutions.
👉 Explore advanced blockchain strategies
👉 Learn more about smart contract platforms