No it doesn't it's the other way around.
I'm not calculating market cap. I'm calculating the max value of a fixed coin asset, not the current.
If their scarcity is the same then their value per share(token) should be the same.
Therefore the token price multiplied by the max number of tokens should be the same.
I'm ignoring the other metrics like utility and decentralization which most certainly will have effect.
Lol scarcity being the same does not imply value is the same, that only holds with equal utility.
Anyway read this from 2017 if you're interested in a well-argued case about relative max valuations of store of value vs utility tokens:
https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-pfeffer/An+Investor%27s+Take+on+Cryptoassets+v6.pdfThanks it's going to be a good read.
Yes an asset is more than its scarcity. For Eth going from not-scarce to scarse should have a positive effect regardless...
That by itself is a positive event for intrinsic value but in the case of a 100x overvaluation right now it might not be reflected in a change of market price at all.
Further, aren't they switching from PoW to PoS? An extreme detrimental development wrt value as that leads to more centralization. As a centralized solution it's simply a terribly complex and expensive solution that is already done much cheaper and easier.
PoS discussion is the same as when Bitcoin mining pools had >50% of hashing rate.
With the banning of mining and the increasing need of cheap power for mining one could say that Bitcoin is getting more centralized too...
Eth needs validators which are currently centralized but should decentralize over time. The switch hasn't been made yet.
But let me state I have more faith in Bitcoin but Ethereum is a profitable investment at the moment.
I'd like to hear your proof for the 100x overvaluation...