Viewpoint: The credible neutrality of BTC and ETH is defined by token distribution and transparency, governance relationships, and developer platforms.

David Marcus, former head of Facebook's stablecoin project, published a post refuting 1confirmation founder Nick Tomaino's claim that ETH is by no means neutral. In response, Nick Tomaino stated that credible neutrality can be defined from three aspects:

1. Token distribution and transparency: BTC has 0% internal allocation. Anyone can participate as a PoW miner, and the process is completely transparent. ETH has a 10% internal allocation and previously also used PoW mining. In contrast, Solana has 62% internal allocation, did not disclose token distribution and validators in its early days, and generally lacks transparency.

2. Governance relationships: Bitcoin pioneered the internet-native approach, while Ethereum is building an internet-native ecosystem together with the global community. Solana, on the other hand, is more like a "company token" and has participated in lobbying efforts in the United States.

3. Developer platform: Bitcoin does not have a robust developer platform, whereas Ethereum supports a wide range of important use cases (stablecoins, DeFi, NFTs, prediction markets, decentralized social networks, etc.). Ethereum prioritizes providing a decentralized platform for developers and companies. Coinbase, Blackrock, Fidelity, Stripe, Kraken, Deutsche Bank, Sony, Visa, Polymarket, Uniswap, Aave, and Opensea are all building within the Ethereum ecosystem.

Important question: how do you define credible neutrality?

A good place to start:

Token allocation and transparency: BTC had 0% insider allocation. Anyone could participate as a PoW miner and the system has been fully transparent from day 1. Ethereum had 10% insider allocation, similarly transparent ICO that anyone could participate in from day 1, and full transparency on mining starting as PoW. Solana had 62% insider allocation and no disclosure on token distribution and validators early on. High insider ownership and overall lack of transparency is bad for perceived neutrality.

Jurisdictional ties: Bitcoin started internet native with a pseudonymous founder and global community. Ethereum started internet native as well with a global community. Like Ripple, Solana is effectively a Silicon Valley company coin with a high concentration of team and investors in SV. Now it's important to see which communities are lobbying with large governments like the U.S. The short-term gain of being perceived to be close with a government could actually hurt long-term neutrality.

Developer platform: Bitcoin has no meaningful developer platform to speak of, which is why it's been many years behind Ethereum on all the important use cases that have brought new people into crypto in the past decade (stablecoins, DeFi, NFTs, prediction markets, decentralized social, etc). Ethereum has prioritized providing a decentralized platform for developers and companies that offers censorship resistance and self-sovereignty.

You don't have to believe my words. Just look where Coinbase, Blackrock, Fidelity, Stripe, Kraken, Deutsche Bank, Sony, Visa, Polymarket, Uniswap, Aave, Opensea and every other serious company and team in crypto is building. Credible neutrality is the reason.

No lies told here. Please discuss.