TL;DR
- Richard Heart said Bitcoin’s dominance does not make it the best crypto, arguing “best” should reflect utility and design.
- He claimed Ethereum is better because programmability enables decentralized applications and broader functionality beyond transfers.
- Heart acknowledged Bitcoin’s brand power and trust, but said its conservative approach limits feature expansion, separating top technology from top asset performance in market cycles.
Richard Heart, the founder of HEX, argues Bitcoin’s market dominance does not make it the best cryptocurrency, and he is using Ethereum as his reference point for what “best” should mean. Heart is reframing the BTC debate from price leadership to functional utility and design tradeoffs. In a recent argument shared publicly, he said Bitcoin succeeded as a brand and a first mover, but that its architecture and feature set limit what it can do relative to platforms that support broader application layers. His comments land as markets debate what value accrual should look like beyond scarcity.
I've been telling you Bitcoin was at the top of its S curve for several years now. Which means that, if you want to make mad gains, you might want to buy something better, with more potential. PulseChain is better. Ethereum is better. PLSX, HEX, and ProveX, when it comes out… pic.twitter.com/QCZedimVUZ
— Richard Heart (@RichardHeartWin) February 6, 2026
Ethereum as the benchmark and Bitcoin as the brand
Heart’s core claim is that Ethereum is “better” because it supports a wider range of uses that go beyond simple transfers or store of value narratives. He is positioning programmability as the differentiator that Bitcoin cannot easily replicate. He pointed to Ethereum’s role in enabling decentralized applications and broader functionality, framing that flexibility as the practical reason users and builders gravitate to it. In his view, Bitcoin’s success comes from recognition and network effect, not from being the most capable technology in the sector. He suggested that “best” should be judged by what a chain can enable.
At the same time, Heart acknowledged Bitcoin’s strengths, emphasizing that it remains the most recognized crypto asset and a dominant reference point for the market. The critique is not that Bitcoin failed, but that it optimized for a narrower mission and now carries that constraint. He implied that Bitcoin’s conservative evolution is part of why it is trusted, yet that same conservatism restricts expansion into richer onchain features. The contrast he drew puts Bitcoin in the role of digital commodity while pushing Ethereum toward the role of programmable infrastructure. That split remains central.
Heart used the comparison to argue that technological superiority and price superiority are not the same thing, especially in markets driven by attention and liquidity. He is separating “best technology” from “best performing asset,” challenging a common investor shortcut. His framing suggests that the strongest brand can win without being the most feature rich protocol. The underlying message is that crypto markets can reward simplicity and early credibility, even if newer platforms provide more tooling. That argument echoes broader debates across blockchains that trade off decentralization, security, and flexibility.
The comments also double as a positioning statement for Heart’s own worldview, where product design and token mechanics matter as much as narrative. Heart’s thesis is that users should evaluate chains by outcomes and capabilities, not just by market cap. He does not claim Bitcoin is irrelevant; rather, he presents it as less complete for modern crypto use cases. Whether the market agrees depends on how investors prioritize scarcity, settlement reliability, and programmability in the next phase of adoption. The debate remains open today.
