Harvard Favours Ethereum (ETH) Over Bitcoin(BTC): 0 Sum Game Myths Exposed

The difference between Ethereum and Bitcoin in terms of their admissions processes is a significant one, according to Jeff Park, who made this point during the crypto-charged debate involving Elon Musk.

Bitcoin was constructed with strict limitations. The maximum number of coins is unchangeable. The conditions of the game are inflexible. They are regarded as the laws of nature. On the other hand, Ethereum operates on a policy that is laid on top of the code. It develops by means of social agreement. Regulations may be modified if the community reaches a decision that they should be. Park contends that Harvard is definitely in the second group.

Also read: Ethereum Records All-Time High Smart Contract Deployments, Eyes $3,143 Price Target

Ethereum and Myth of Hard caps

Elon Musk’s negative comments regarding the failed agreements and the unfair systems received a reply from Park who went straight to the point and proposed an obvious solution. Accept another student. The top-tier schools are horrified by that proposition. They consider the shortage a holy matter, even when it is evident that it is an artificial one.

Harvard portrays the admissions process as a zero-sum game situation. The number of available seats is small. The selection is unbiased. The procedures are predetermined. Nevertheless, Park argues that these constraints are not real. They are options. The number of students in a class can be adjusted. The importance of the past, race, or family ties can be altered. There is no permanence to any of this.

Here, Ethereum becomes the appropriate metaphor. Ethereum does not refuse to accept the governance but rather acknowledges it. The alterations are the result of debates, persuasion, and consensus. Harvard discreetly practices the same. It makes decisions in private while publicly expressing the necessity of the change.

The most recent critique of Harvard has reinforced this perspective. According to the accounts of instructors and candidates, there are implicit exclusions and fluctuating criteria. The results differ from one year to another depending on the internal priorities. This alone debunks the notion of a system that is strictly governed by rules and is mechanical in its operation. When the outcomes change, the administration is influencing the situation.

Why Ethereum Fits Harvard’s System

Park’s comparison strikes a chord as crypto-native audiences notice the distinction right away. A system brimming with rules being characterized as just is devoid of meaning if the rules have been partially enacted or are being altered behind the scenes. Ethereum does not even for a moment behave as if governance is not there, while Bitcoin does.

Harvard’s error, Park claims, is not in having control over admissions. Rather, it is in refusing to acknowledge the control. By positioning shortage as fate, the university escapes the obligation to be accountable. Artificial restrictions appear impartial. Management calls for taking the responsibility.

In crypto terminology, Harvard is not a hard-capped chain. It has a socially governed network but keeps on saying that it does not. This contradiction is the main issue. Once it is revealed, the discussion is changed. The issue is no longer if the system is fair by design. The question is whether the ones in power are ready to accept the authority they have and are exercising.

Also Read: Ethereum Whales Accumulate $350 million Worth of ETH as Supply Concentration Rises