What Really Counts as "Real Value" in Crypto?

Here's the thing nobody can seem to agree on: when we talk about a crypto asset having "real value," what exactly are we talking about?

You hear it everywhere in Web3 circles. Investors claim it. Projects build around it. Communities debate it endlessly. Yet ask ten different people to define it, and you'll get ten different answers.

The problem runs deeper than semantics. It touches on fundamentals like utility, scarcity, adoption, and risk. Some measure value by actual use cases—transaction volume, protocol TVL, genuine demand. Others point to market sentiment, network effects, or even philosophical ideas about decentralization and sovereignty.

Then there's the timing factor. What looks valueless today might become essential tomorrow. The reverse happens too.

So where's the disconnect? Part of it is that crypto collapsed traditional valuation models. You can't just apply stock metrics or commodity pricing. The space operates on different logic.

The real conversation isn't about finding one definition. It's about acknowledging which definition each participant is actually using—and why the gaps between these perspectives matter more than we think.