Valuing L1s based only on fees is shortsighted. If that was the case, $TRX should trade higher than $ETH. But it's not. Decentralization (meaning security), dev activity, TVL, ecosystem maturity, tokenomics... all these factors matter. Opinions that ETH is dumping because fees are dropping as activity shifts to L2s are getting louder. Standard Chartered cut ETH price forecast from $10k to $4k because fees were outsourced to L2s. Sure, fees matter, but if they were the only factor, BTC would trade lower than ETH. But it's not. For some, ETH is money as pristine and yield-bearing collateral in DeFi (like Maker and Ethena). For others. ETH serves as a store of value differently from BTC. While BTC hedges against macro instability and money printing, ETH is a store of value in the digital economy. A stable macro environment and fiscal prudence risk BTC but not ETH. For those like me, ETH, SOL and other L1 tokens are productive assets. I use them to farm ecosystem token airdrops while benefiting from L1 price appreciation if the ecosystem expands. I know it's speculative, but it has nonetheless helped me outperform pure ETH spot price. Tron's $TRX is none of the above things even it generates higher fees. Many are likely bearish and selling ETH because of the low fees. However, this is a natural shift in the narrative from viewing ETH solely as digital oil to recognizing its value beyond just being a fee generating database.

Good counter arguments for fee-based thesis: