According to Odaily Planet Daily, Mechanism Capital partner Andrew Kang has published a post refuting Tom Lee's bullish thesis on ETH, calling it "idiotic" and the most financially illiterate he has seen recently. Andrew Kang refuted several of Lee's bullish arguments for ETH one by one:

On the adoption of stablecoins and RWAs. Kang believes that Ethereum network upgrades have improved transaction efficiency, and stablecoin and tokenization activities are also flowing to other public chains. The transaction fees generated by tokenizing low-liquidity assets are negligible (a $100 million bond traded once every two years only costs about $0.1).

The digital oil analogy is a fallacy. Kang argues that oil is a commodity, and its real price, adjusted for inflation, has remained in the same range for a century. Treating ETH as a commodity is not a bullish argument.

Institutional Pledge Capital Theory. Kang argues that major banks haven't included ETH on their balance sheets, nor have they announced plans to do so. They don't hoard gasoline for ongoing energy needs; they simply buy on demand when demand is minimal. Banks also don't take stakes in the custodians they use.

Kang believes that the theory that ETH is equivalent to the total value of financial infrastructure enterprises is a complete misunderstanding and delusion of the value accumulation mechanism.

-Technical Analysis. Kang believes that objectively speaking, Ethereum has been in a multi-year range-bound trading. Having recently hit the top of the range but failed to break through resistance, the technical outlook is bearish. While the long-term ETH/BTC chart remains range-bound, it has been primarily declining in recent years, and fundamentals do not support valuation growth. Ethereum's valuation stems primarily from a lack of financial literacy—much like XRP—but this valuation is not infinite. While macro liquidity supports ETH's market capitalization, it will continue to underperform without significant changes.