A few days after more abrupt departures of several high-profile Ethereum Foundation researchers and contributors, the silence from the EF has only deepened the uncertainty gripping the Ethereum community.
What began earlier this week as shock over more exits of core figures has now evolved into something more existential, according to some community members: a public reckoning over whether Ethereum’s most influential institution still understands the ecosystem it was built to steward.
The Foundation has yet to offer a detailed explanation for the departures or address the growing criticism of its leadership and strategic direction, which many have pointed out over the last few weeks. In that vacuum, community members, investors and former insiders have begun crafting their own narratives about what has gone wrong at the EF and what it may mean for Ethereum’s future.
On Thursday, former Ethereum Foundation researcher Dankrad Feist published one of the clearest articulations 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’s economically aligned with Ethereum and accountable to it.”
Feist argued that, despite its cultural influence, the EF 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 flow of staking or fee revenue from the network.
“If we want to get Ethereum back to winning,” he said, the ecosystem needs a new institution with permanent funding, explicit accountability and leadership focused on growth. Among his proposals: a $1 billion treasury, funded in part through staking revenues, overseen by a board incentivized to see ETH appreciate in value.
‘Original sin’
Crypto journalist Laura Shin, host of the Unchained podcast, framed the issue even more bluntly.
“I think Ethereum’s original sin was not considering tokenomics with every move it made from Dencun on,” Shin wrote on X, referring to the March 2024 upgrade that dramatically reduced transaction fees on Ethereum layer-2 networks.
The “ultrasound money” thesis, the idea that ETH would become increasingly scarce through fee burns, had once become central to Ethereum’s investment narrative. But critics argue that Ethereum’s scaling roadmap, particularly its embrace of rollups and lower base-layer fees, weakened that dynamic without offering a compelling replacement narrative to token holders.
“Most people,” Shin wrote, “don’t want to believe in something that isn’t also putting up points on the scoreboard.”
Her comments reflected a broader frustration emerging from some corners of the Ethereum community: that the EF has become overly focused on ideology while neglecting competition, business development and ETH price performance.
“When the main offering becomes ideology/communism and money/tokenomics/capitalism are overlooked,” she wrote, “the peasants are going to revolt.”
Others pointed to the EF’s recent internal controversies, including the “mandate” that some contributors were reportedly 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 EF, speculation has increasingly centered on what role new executive leadership may have played in the departures and whether the exits reflect a deeper cultural shift underway within Ethereum’s most important institution.
“I personally don’t think it’s good for Ethereum if its most competitive people depart,” Shin wrote. “Ethereum’s unwillingness to stop the brain drain will only benefit its competitors, or spawn new ones.”
Read more: ‘What’s happening at the EF?’ Ethereum community looking for answers after high-profile departures
