<p>The term <i>upcycling</i> has gained rapid traction in research, policy, and industry, often presented as a superior alternative to recycling by claiming to convert waste into products of higher value. This semantic distinction, however, is problematic. By definition, it risks portraying recycling as inferior and may misguide circular economy strategies. In this paper, I examine the foundations of upcycling through thermodynamic and economic reasoning, emphasizing the link between entropy reduction and commodity value creation. Any process transforming waste into new materials must overcome entropy to restore usability – a principle that defines recycling. Claims of <i>higher value</i> relative to original products are usually economically inconsistent: if such transformations were competitive, the original products would not be manufactured in the first place. Through thought experiments and case studies on polymers and rubbers, it is shown that perpetual upcycling is as infeasible as perpetual motion. To resolve this ambiguity, a revised definition is proposed: <i>upcycling</i> should denote a post-recycling activity that captures functional or market differentiation value, rather than material entropy reduction. It therefore acts through a temporary decommoditization premium. This clarification, benchmarked against commodity value, aligns circular economy semantics with physical and economic principles, preventing greenwashing and guiding innovation toward realistic sustainability outcomes.</p>