Days after the more abrupt departures of several prominent Ethereum Foundation researchers and contributors, the EF’s silence has only deepened the uncertainty within the Ethereum community.
What began earlier this week as shock over new exits from key figures has now evolved into something more existential, according to some in the community: a public question about whether Ethereum’s most influential institution still understands the ecosystem it was designed for.
The Foundation has yet to provide a detailed explanation for these departures or respond to growing criticism of its leadership and strategic direction, which many have highlighted in recent weeks. In this void, community members, investors, and former insiders have begun to craft their own narratives about what went wrong within the EF and what it could mean for the future of Ethereum.
On Thursday, Dankrad Feist, a former researcher at the Ethereum Foundation, published one of the clearest expressions yet of a growing view among critics: that Ethereum’s governance and institutional structure are fundamentally misaligned with the economic interests of the network itself.
“The way to save Ethereum,” Feist wrote on X, “is for the community to create an organization that is economically aligned with and accountable to Ethereum.”
Feist argued that, despite its cultural influence, the FE does not have as much economic leverage over the ecosystem. The foundation now controls “less than 0.1% of all ETH,” he wrote, and receives no direct stream of staking revenue or fees from the network.
“If we want Ethereum to return to victory,” he said, the ecosystem needs a new institution with permanent funding, explicit accountability, and growth-focused leadership. Among his proposals: a billion-dollar treasury, funded in part by staking revenue, overseen by a board of directors incentivized to see the value of ETH appreciate.
“Original sin”
Crypto journalist Laura Shin, host of the Unchained podcast, put the problem even more directly.
“I think Ethereum’s original sin was not considering tokenomics with every move made since Dencun,” Shin wrote on X, referring to the March 2024 upgrade that significantly reduced transaction fees on layer 2 Ethereum networks.
The “ultrasonic money” thesis, the idea that ETH would become increasingly scarce due to reduced fees, had once become central to the Ethereum investment narrative. But critics say Ethereum’s scaling roadmap, particularly its adoption of rollups and lower base layer fees, has weakened that dynamic without offering a compelling replacement narrative for token holders.
“Most people,” Shin wrote, “don’t want to believe in something that doesn’t earn points on the scoreboard.”
His comments reflected a broader frustration emerging from some corners of the Ethereum community: the FE has focused too much on ideology while neglecting competition, business development, and ETH price performance.
“When the main offering becomes ideology/communism and money/tokenomics/capitalism are neglected,” she wrote, “the peasants will revolt.”
Others pointed to recent internal FE controversies, including the “mandate” that some contributors were allegedly asked to sign, according to Shin, as well as lingering questions about recent leadership appointments and decision-making processes within the Foundation.
In the absence of direct communication from the FE, speculation has increasingly focused on the role new leadership might have played in the departures and whether the departures reflect a deeper cultural shift underway within Ethereum’s most important institution.
“Personally, I don’t think it’s good for Ethereum if its most competitive people leave,” Shin wrote. “Ethereum’s reluctance to stop the brain drain will only benefit its competitors, or spawn new ones.”
Read more: “What’s happening at the EF? Ethereum community searching for answers after high-profile departures
