NewsFlash Articles Data Fundraising Skill&API

Ethereum Community Fund Chair Interview: Hard Forks, Departures, and Liquidation - What Is Happening to Ethereum?

Read this article in 60 Minutes

In the past, there has been a so-called ETH killer in every cycle, but many of them were just vaporware; the current issue is that someone has finally produced a car that looks cooler and drives faster.

Original Video Title: The EF Is Shrinking. What Does It Mean for Ethereum—and ETH?

Original Video Source: Unchained

Original Translation: DeepTech TechFlow

Editor's Note

The current core contradiction of Ethereum is not only the EF (Ethereum Foundation) "downsizing" or high-level departures, but the misalignment of rights and responsibilities among ETH as an asset, Ethereum as public infrastructure, and EF as a coordinating center.

Zak Cole (Chair of the Ethereum Community Fund) and Greg Markou (Sprinter Co-Founder & CEO, ChainSafe Co-Founder) have both been deeply involved in building within the Ethereum ecosystem, one representing the more radical "ETH asset value faction," the other representing an engineering and infrastructure perspective;

Their differences happen to reveal the underlying tension of this dialogue, whether Ethereum should continue to be a values-driven cypherpunk network or must acknowledge price, governance, ecosystem collaboration, and competition like a mature company.

The most valuable aspect of this conversation lies in how it aligns Vitalik's statement that "EF will be a smaller ship," CROPS values (anti-censorship, open source, privacy, and security), senior staff departures, David Hoffman's ETH liquidation, Dankrad Feist's proposal for a separate $1 billion organization, and the on-chain revenue diversion by Solana, Tron, and Hyperliquid along the same thread.

Key Quotes

Ethereum is No Longer an Early-Stage Startup

· "Ethereum is no longer a startup project; it is a mature and vast ecosystem with billions or even trillions of dollars at stake. Many people's careers and livelihoods depend on it."

· "The EF claims it is not a center, but in the event of a contentious fork, Circle and Tether will most likely follow the chain chosen by the EF; the actual outcome will make EF the de facto center."

· "Admitting one's responsibility is not shameful. On the contrary, I hope EF truly takes responsibility, diversifies its board, and brings in people who understand product, company, market, and communication."

· "An organization can be professional, transparent, and scalable while still adhering to principles of censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security."

Price Is Not Noise, But Part of Security

· "After transitioning to PoS, ETH's value is part of the network's security; the lower the ETH price, the lower the network security."

· "You can't first establish an economic system and then, ten years later, say, maybe economics are important. ETH's monetary premium is itself a mechanism to attract users, create security, and generate value."

· "If there are already scoreboards on the field, it means you are on a field that cares about scores. If a team doesn't care about winning, they should go back to the playground."

· "EF is not unable to uphold the CROPS values; the issue is that it has not treated ETH and ETH price as tools to advance these principles."

The Real Issue Is Not Resignation, But Who Is Making Decisions

· "It is not unusual for a mature organization to experience personnel movement, unless these individuals start collectively moving to other ecosystems; currently, most of them will continue to work within the Ethereum ecosystem."

· "Bastian may be a great person, but for someone in a central position in Ethereum, the outside world hardly knows who he is or why he is able to make these significant decisions."

· "If EF's key employees are indeed in charge of major projects, but even deeply involved people in the ecosystem don't know what they are doing, that is also a failure of EF to communicate clearly."

Ethereum Is Not Facing the Next "ETH Killer" Noise

· "In the past, each cycle had the so-called ETH killers, but many were just vaporware; the problem now is that someone has finally produced a cooler-looking car that is also faster."

· "EF cannot be completely unaware that competitors like Solana, Tron, Hyperliquid are competing for income and users, but many may not really care."

· "CROPS may win in the long run, but not necessarily in the short run. The issue is, if you lose in the short term, you may also lose the opportunity to win in the long term."

A Small Foundation Can Be Established, but the Board Can No Longer Operate Like a Family Business

· "EF can continue to shrink, continue to focus on research, but it must hand over much of the execution work to external organizations that are better at it."

· "The board should not become an internal promotion and cronyism system; it should introduce outsiders from different fields such as DeFi, open source, institutions, product, and communications."

· "Ethereum needs to increase its stroke of luck. Winning requires many factors, including luck, and expanding outreach is itself a way to improve the odds of success."

Recent Turmoil in the Ethereum Community

Laura Shin: Over the past week, the Ethereum community has been in turmoil due to the resignation of several Foundation members, especially the departure of some senior members causing concern. Meanwhile, David Hoffman, co-host of Bankless (an Ethereum-focused crypto media and podcast), announced that he sold his last ETH. Currently, the price of ETH is around $2100, having once approached $5000 last summer and fall.

On Sunday, Vitalik once again stated that "EF will be a smaller ship," emphasizing that EF will become a smaller entity and reiterating that Ethereum's CROPS values are its guiding principles. CROPS refer to censorship resistance, open source/openness, privacy, and security.

The community has been concerned that Ethereum is losing ground to other chains. When Tomasz Stańczak was appointed as EF's co-managing director in 2025, these concerns eased somewhat, but he left after serving for 11 months. Now, the community feels that Vitalik and EF seem to have reverted to old patterns, which previously caused significant anxiety within the community. Before diving into the details of each event, I'd like to hear your overall thoughts on this upheaval. Zak, you go first.

Zak Cole: I've been beating this drum for a long time, repeatedly criticizing EF's performance and its attitude toward the broader ecosystem. I believe they did take a few steps in the right direction, but now it seems like they have taken a few steps back. However, overall, people's sentiments towards EF now are essentially directly linked to the price of ETH. If ETH were still at $5000, I don't think there would be as many complaints about what EF did or didn't do.

So I don't want to be too harsh on EF. Much of the sentiment comes from price performance, which is not entirely within EF's control. Of course, I'm not saying EF shouldn't consider the price, nor am I saying that the price shouldn't be seen as part of network security. I just think that a large part of this may be bear market sentiment.

Laura Shin: Greg, what's your take?

Greg Markou: I also think the bear market and the current price definitely affect the overall sentiment. But I also want to say that EF has indeed grown significantly since Tomasz joined. At that time, Danny Ryan was also seen as a possible leadership candidate, and there was a lot of internal and community turmoil within the foundation. Tomasz has at least made efforts to realign the direction EF should focus on.

Now that he has left and others have been leaving one after another, the situation is complex. Many of the departing individuals have been at EF for four or five years, or even five or six years. They may just need a break, a change of direction, or to pursue other things. Overall, EF has taken many steps towards maturity, cut off some long-standing community grievances, and increased transparency. As for the recent news surrounding CROPS, I think there is some merit in it.

However, after Tomasz's departure, the situation has indeed taken a turn towards the current state. Overall, I still feel that things are moving in a positive direction. Even Vitalik's post from yesterday has slightly changed my perspective.

Laura Shin: When you say things are moving in a positive direction, what specifically are you referring to?

Greg Markou: I mean EF is beginning to realize it needs to mature, understand where its priorities should lie, and recognize that in certain areas, it must rely on other teams to hold the fort.

Zak Cole: My concern is that we've heard this kind of talk before. They tried it with Tomasz, and it was a mess. Now, it looks like they want to go back to their comfort zone: endlessly talking about the infinite garden, funding longevity research, doing a bunch of things that no one cares about except Vitalik and his small circle. Frankly, EF is completely out of touch with reality.

Of course, I can also say after criticizing them that at least they acknowledge that other organizations must step up. But the question is, are they really willing to hand over power to more capable, more grounded organizations? Ethereum is no longer a startup project; it is a mature, resilient ecosystem. You can't be whimsical like six years ago or ten years ago. Now there are tens of billions or even trillions of dollars at stake, and many people's livelihoods depend on it. My entire career is built on Ethereum; what do I do if something goes wrong with it?

Laura Shin: You all mentioned earlier: many of the recent departures from the EF were senior members and quite well-known in the community. In my view, this is not optimistic; rather, it is concerning. However, it sounds like you are not as worried. How do you see it? In my view, several of them are true Ethereum evangelists.

Zak Cole: I don't think this is particularly concerning. Mature organizations experience staff turnover, and these individuals have been around for a long time.

Laura Shin: Even though most of it happened after Tomasz's departure? Mostly within a three-month period?

Zak Cole: I'm not saying this is a positive thing. I'm just saying that this may be a signal of ecosystem maturity. It may not be EF getting more mature but rather regressing from Tomasz's approach. I don't know. In any case, the ecosystem itself is growing.

If these individuals were not aligned with EF's internal direction, it might be better for them to leave and pursue their own endeavors. I believe they will still be active in the Ethereum ecosystem, at least I hope so. It's hard to judge the long-term outcome now because I haven't spoken to them and don't know what they are thinking.

Laura Shin: I didn't name names earlier, but these include Tim Beiko, Barnabé Monnot, Josh Stark, Trent Van Epps, Carl Beekhuizen, Julian Mauduit, etc., all familiar faces in the community.

Zak Cole: They are indeed well-known. However, I'm not trying to disrespect their past contributions. I'm just asking, what have they specifically done recently? What have they contributed to the EF and the broader ecosystem recently?

Laura Shin: Perhaps not all their work is publicly acknowledged. Are you suggesting that you don't think they are that important?

Zak Cole: I'm not saying they are unimportant. I just feel that to some extent, they have received a sort of "tenured position" and are starting to pursue passion projects. If they are indeed responsible for significant endeavors and major projects, then perhaps it is again EF's failure for not articulating to the outside world what exactly these individuals are leading.

Personally, I don't know what the EF is doing, I don't know what each employee is doing, and I don't know what the board is doing.

I only know what Vitalik has said, and that's about it. As someone deeply involved in the ecosystem, if I can't even explain what they are doing, except for Trent working on the Protocol Guild (a mechanism to fund Ethereum protocol contributors), then the EF has failed to showcase and explain its work.

Laura Shin: Greg, what are your thoughts?

Greg Markou: This isn't optimistic, but I'm not worried yet. Unless we see these people starting to massively flow to other ecosystems.

My intuition is that this is not like Max Resnick's very high-profile departure from Ethereum to the Solana camp. From what I've heard, most people will continue to work on Ethereum, just not within the EF. This seems more like a healthy flow. Only when an organization gets into a negative feedback loop and everyone is being poached by other ecosystems do we really need to be vigilant.

If they start building on Solana, then we should worry. Last year's departure of Peter Szilagyi is also an example. His output gradually declined over six to twelve months, maybe one or two PRs a month, and finally naturally left. Of course, I may underestimate his contribution, but that seemed more like a natural flow. And this group has not shown the kind of intense exit he did.

Laura Shin: What about Tomasz's departure? He only joined 11 months ago, in response to community demands for change and dissatisfaction. He was very popular, with praise all over the timeline. He was open and talked to as many builders as possible, so his quick departure is shocking. The community feels this means the EF is reverting to not listening to the community. Why do you think this happened?

Zak Cole: I believe the EF succumbed to community pressure by putting Tomasz in that position, but it didn't really want to relinquish control. He was still just a co-managing director along with Hsiao-Wei Wang, so he didn't have the full freedom to enact real organizational change. When he tried to drive these changes, I think he was pushed out because he didn't fit into the EF's infinite garden culture.

After he left, they brought in a mysterious figure, Bastian Aue, whom almost no one knew or had seen. Then EF released a so-called mandate document, visually styled like something out of DeviantArt.

It could have been a clear blog post explaining the CROPS principles, but they chose to turn it into a document resembling a comic book manifesto. This made me very pessimistic. I don't want an organization that affects my child's financial future to put out something like this.

Laura Shin: We should display it on the screen for the audience to see. We were just laughing at this document. It indeed has a unique aesthetic, and the choice of font is very strange.

Zak Cole: I'll be direct, Tomasz would not release something like this. Greg, I know you want to remain optimistic, but it's hard for you to look at this document and say, "This is perfect for shaping the financial future, institutions will certainly feel confident putting their money in." They even talk about "if it fails, may EF commit hara-kiri with a sword" or something like that. Odd design is one thing; the text itself is equally detached from reality.

Laura Shin: Are you talking about that small comic at the bottom of page 11? It's truly insane.

So let's jump to Vitalik's Sunday post first, as there's a point that caught my attention. He said Bastian is leading this transformation of EF. Do you think this mandate document is from Bastian or from Vitalik? Or does that not matter?

Zak Cole: EF has a board, and Vitalik holds a majority influence on the board. No matter what he says, from an organizational chart perspective, Vitalik is at the top, and he has the legal right to do what he wants.

He can say it's decentralized, or someone else is leading, but it's not the case in practice. EF is fundamentally Vitalik's mouthpiece. Regardless of whether they admit it or not, Vitalik controls EF, and none of these things would happen without his approval.

Laura Shin: Greg, do you agree?

Greg Markou: I mostly agree. From this perspective, this is not fundamentally different from the "shadow government" controversy within EF a decade ago, just now more transparent and evident. This document most likely did not come out without Vitalik and Bastian's consent.

error

Laura Shin: I also tried to figure out who he was. I found a picture of Bastian Aue online and asked EF if that was him, but they said no. I also received some physical descriptions from people who know him, confirming that the photo was not him.

This is also the point I made in the post, EF's PR team was very angry about this. Bastian and Tomasz are in stark contrast. Tomasz is out there engaging with people, you can see him, he has a presence in the community, both online and offline.

He instills confidence because everyone can see what he's up to. Bastian has almost no history, no public information can be found about him, except for that strange website we couldn't confirm belonged to him. After being appointed as interim co-CEO, he also barely tweeted; and EF didn't explain how the next CEO would be sought, what the process would be, what the next steps are, just saying he is interim.

Greg Markou: This is actually a recurring pattern with EF. Overall, EF has hardly communicated with people. I know some L2 teams have been very dissatisfied in the past because, from marketing to other things, they have never really had a dialogue with the EF organization at the organizational level. Researchers may chat sporadically, but the organization itself does not communicate.

Tomasz once tried to change that. It wasn't until recently that people like Charles and Yvonne really started paying attention to DeFi and going out to do the work. But this took ten years. Now that DeFi TVL has dropped, it seems a bit too late.

Now we are seeing the same repetition. The newcomers may be good, but no one has heard of him, seen him, understood him, and he is reshaping the budget, splitting the team. This is indeed worrisome.

Laura Shin: Let's go back to the authorization document. There are rumors that at that time, EF employees had to sign a loyalty pledge to the CROPS principles, or else they would be fired by the foundation. Do you think this initiative came from Bastian or Vitalik? What do you make of this practice?

Greg Markou: I think this is just a scapegoat. As someone from an operations background, this really makes me angry. Over the years, EF has not effectively fired inappropriate people, nor has it held the teams accountable. It certainly has excellent project managers and engineers, but in the past, there have often been teams holding a $20 million budget and doing things randomly, with no engineering management accountability.

I have argued with Tomasz before that there should be engineering managers, they need to be truly bound by standards, not necessarily publicly, but the budget cannot run endlessly like this. So the so-called loyalty pledge, like the excuse they use to clean up people who do not fit the cultural template, while conveniently conducting a round of layoffs.

Zak Cole: This makes me feel like they want to have it both ways. They want everything, but are unwilling to take an extra step to ensure that these principles are truly adhered to.

Laura Shin: So, you mean, having employees sign a loyalty pledge is an indirect way, rather than directly discussing with them about the mission, confirming whether they agree?

Zak Cole: Yes. Then they use this as a reason to get rid of people, just like Greg said.

David Hoffman's ETH Sale Impact

Laura Shin: Next, let's talk about another event from last week. While the community was still discussing these departures, Bankless' David Hoffman announced that he had sold his remaining ETH. This was shocking because Bankless has been a very Ethereum-focused podcast from day one.

His co-host Ryan Sean Adams still believes in Ethereum, but David will not be appearing on the show as frequently in the future. What was your reaction to hearing this?

Zak Cole: I don't think this is news. In my view, David has been doing his own thing for years. Bankless is fundamentally an entrepreneur, a business person, they will do what is most beneficial to their bottom line, which does not necessarily equate to what is best for Ethereum. They have a startup incubator, as well as a venture capital fund, so they have their fiduciary duties.

David has done some pessimistic things over the past few years, this is not news. He is now saying he sold ETH, which may be a bit for attention, as he has already shaped himself as some kind of antagonist in the wider Ethereum ecosystem. I wouldn't sell ETH just because David sold. People have been buying and selling all along, I just wouldn't tweet about it.

Laura Shin: But his whole identity was once tied to Ethereum.

Zak Cole: I haven't seen David as an Ethereum believer for three or four years now. I see him as someone who is acting in the market to make money, which is fine. If that's what he wants to do, that's fine. At least he's not secretly selling his position while publicly shouting for ETH.

Laura Shin: Greg, what do you think?

Greg Markou: I'm not particularly concerned. However, when someone has such a huge impact and has built a brand around ETH for a long time, it does reflect some character issues. It also brings in clicks, that's basically how I see it.

Zak Cole: One more thing worth noting: The EF and Vitalik always say they don't want to create kings, but they directly contributed to David Hoffman's influence. They gave him the spotlight and a microphone. Five or six years ago, Vitalik supported him, making Bankless gradually the de facto Ethereum podcast.

Before that, he was just a small podcast host. Giving someone a microphone and attention is itself making a king. This contradicts their current statements.

Laura Shin: The day after David's announcement, Dankrad Feist made a proposal. He used to do research at the EF, left to join Tempo last fall. In a tweet, he said that to make Ethereum win again, first, establish an organization with trusted funds, starting with at least $1 billion; second, find a capable and willing leader; third, create a board and charter that hopes for ETH's rise to hold this organization accountable; fourth, fund it permanently with a substantial amount of staking revenue.

I find it interesting that the EF could fully embrace the CROPS principles and also do what Dankrad mentioned. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. But the way EF operates now, it's as if they want to do CROPS but don't want to fight for it, just want to stay in an ivory tower, believing "if you build it, they will come." What do you think of this proposal?

Zak Cole: The biggest issue is funding. Giving an organization $1 billion to make ETH great again sounds great, of course. But the more fundamental problem is that the EF does not acknowledge that price is a key driver of the ecosystem, nor does it acknowledge that it is one of the key foundations of network security. After transitioning to PoS, ETH's value is the network's value, equivalent to the entire network's security foundation.

So the key is not "giving away $1 billion to others," but returning to basics: what do we actually need to do? I believe we need to treat ETH as a network asset, ensuring that value flows to ETH. Much value has been lost in the past due to poor strategic decisions, such as pushing too much to L2 or making protocol decisions without considering network and protocol economics.

This has been a huge disservice to ETH and ETH holders, who should have been treated as trustees.

Greg Markou: Historically, apart from a few core teams, many members of the EF were very strong academic researchers, but the concept of applied research was not prominent. For a non-technical audience, applied research means having a more product-oriented approach where you know what the ideal state is, what trade-offs need to be made to get there, and designing a feasible path.

Historically, and even today, most of the application side and actual engineering side are outsourced to external teams. That's why there are consensus client teams and EF grants to external parties. Many issues are also related to execution and leadership.

Internally, the EF is not an organization that is good at holding people accountable and driving product development. Even internal teams are very autonomous. Teams like Geth, which are running well, receive funding, listen to what the research teams want to do, and sometimes reject proposals at the core developer level.

What is worth observing next is that as many people leave, some teams are forced to spin out, although they receive fixed funding which may not be renewed in the future. My understanding is that this is the EF's reaction to recognizing its weaknesses in certain areas. Just like a startup that is not good at making products but excels at X should focus on X.

Thoughts on Vitalik's New Post

Laura Shin: Now, let's discuss Vitalik's Sunday post. First, let's talk about the first half. He emphasizes that this is just his viewpoint, and the foundation has other people and board members; but everyone knows that what Vitalik says is likely the direction. He mentions Bastian is leading the EF transition.

Then he says, Google started with "Don't be evil," but large corporations are now moving towards greed for financial gain, accelerating a unified vision of superintelligence, the infiltration of sociopaths, and bending to or actively participating in government pressure in ideology control, surveillance, and war.

He said this has influenced his vision for the EF: EF should not be the center of Ethereum but one of many nodes with a clear purpose. Due to EF's limited financial resources, holding only about 0.16% of all ETH, resources will be focused on longevity over breadth, meaning pursuing long-term impact rather than breadth.

Considering that ETH has fallen by more than half since last autumn, money is indeed part of the equation as the budget has also shrunk. Finally, he said Ethereum must be compelling, defining it as a provably correct, available chain consensus with maximal reduction of intermediaries. What are your thoughts?

Greg Markou: You don't let senior leadership leave just because of a tight budget. For example, teams like Solidity (Ethereum's main smart contract programming language) often complain that splitting it out might be the budget issue. I wouldn't attribute Tim and others leaving to a budget cut; I think it's more systemic.

Zak Cole: Many of these people have been in Ethereum for ten years. They were there when we started doing these things. Back then, we believed in the same thing, which motivated us to build. I haven't taken much money for a long time; it's really tough, but I do ETH and many things because I believe in it. That's why early Ethereum was great.

Now, putting CROPS at the center, I don't oppose it. It's not about belief itself; the issue is how they run the organization. You can't run today's Ethereum the way you used to. EF has become a giant of enormous influence, the more so, the more afraid to steer it in the direction it should go because there are now too many moving parts and more things at stake.

Laura Shin: The latter part of the post made me raise an eyebrow. Vitalik said the highest value product of the Ethereum blockchain from a financial perspective is the ETH asset. The Ethereum founder saying the blockchain's most valuable product is ETH became news because he usually doesn't like to talk about the price.

He then said that there is some necessary work supporting the ETH asset outside the EF's scope, so other heroes need to help, some of whom hold more ETH than the EF. I read this as implicit recognition of Dankrad's idea. What do you think of his description of the ETH asset?

Zak Cole: It's finally being said. ETH has value and a unique purpose for the network, isn't that obvious? This should have been said five years ago. The importance of ETH lies in it being the foundation of PoS. If ETH's value is low, its security is low. You can't build an economic engine and then say ten years later, maybe economics are important.

I won't continue to attack him just because he's saying what everyone's thinking, but this isn't news. We need to focus on treating ETH as the network's monetary premium. It creates value, attracts new users, and enhances security. The network's security fully relies on ETH having value, that's the innovation of blockchain and crypto.

So it's a bit strange that he's saying all this now.

Greg Markou: This seems like his 'Wolf of Wall Street' moment, just a bit late to the party. But it also aligns with the changes taking place. They hired a DeFi lead, which is great, just very late. DeFi Summer happened six years ago.

I've gotten married, had kids, raised kids, and my hair has turned gray. If it can happen, great, it's just late. But perhaps they're turning a new leaf, after all, there are serious competitors now.

The Cryptoeconomics of ETH and the Competitive Landscape

Laura Shin: This leads to my next topic. I tweeted that the cryptoeconomics of ETH seem a bit broken right now. Many people see value in Ethereum, and many are willing to fight for Vitalik's ideas, CROPS principles, and all that. I think many truly believe in these principles.

But the issue is, Vitalik and the EF haven't leveraged ETH properly. ETH could have been a powerful tool to advance CROPS principles: getting people interested in ETH through ecosystem collaboration and cryptoeconomics, and then delivering these principles to them like a Trojan horse.

Because the average person doesn't know how important these principles are. If you just say you want to stick to these principles and then hope people get interested, I don't think it'll be very effective. Do you all agree that ETH's cryptoeconomics is broken? Is the EF playing a key role in shaping this economics?

Zak Cole: 100%, no doubt.

Greg Markou: If you try to change the current emission curve, I guarantee the entire R&D team will come rushing in to say no.

Laura Shin: When you say curve, you mean the emissions curve?

Greg Markou: Yes. If you touch the economics, they will all get involved. A few years ago, in Haseeb/Hasu's podcast, they discussed changing the curve, it's been three or four years, but we still haven't changed it. There's now an EIP (Ethereum Improvement Proposal) suggesting a reduction in issuance, essentially cutting it in half, which would be great, but it would be a controversial EIP.

Zak Cole: The risk-reward on this thing is not even worth it.

Laura Shin: David Hoffman said something similar. I also tweeted that Ethereum isn't interested in scoring on the scoreboard, and he said that's basically why he left.

Zak Cole: It should be interested. If there's a scoreboard on the field, it means you're in a game where score matters. If your team doesn't care about winning, then go back to the playground.

Laura Shin: That brings us to the next question: the era of competition. Frank Chaparro tweeted this morning that Ethereum's dominance is waning, with ETH down about 30% year-to-date, the ETH/BTC ratio hitting a mid-2025 low, and blockchain revenue flowing steadily to Solana, Tron, and Hyperliquid.

The competitive landscape is rapidly shifting. His chart shows that the once overwhelmingly dominant blue Ethereum has seen more evenly distributed revenue recently.

Laura Shin: I have a feeling that either the EF or Vitalik either didn't realize the scale of the competition that's unfolding, or they don't care. How do you see their awareness of the fact that the competition is just getting started?

Zak Cole: I don't think they are aware at all. In the past, every cycle had an ETH killer, like EOS, many of which were vaporware. But sooner or later, someone will build a car that looks cooler and is actually faster.

In the past, Ethereum has always been the coolest, with the best technology, researchers, and mindshare, which has made many people complacent and lazy. I feel they have not had their ears to the ground and are indeed out of touch with reality.

But this does not mean it's too late. I don't fully buy into the "let ETH win again" rhetoric either. I still think ETH is doing great, better than any other network. The whole market downturn is also due to AI grabbing attention. There are now many shinier things to attract young talent.

Crypto used to be hot, but now it's more like a standard component in the tech stack; AI is the new thing, attracting young people and talent.

Laura Shin: Greg, what do you think about the EF's attitude or awareness of competition?

Greg Markou: I don't think they can be completely ignorant. But in terms of what is actually happening, I believe many people have not paid serious attention to other ecosystems. ChainSafe has worked on nodes and infrastructure for many mainstream blockchains, and we often bring back ideas that look good on other chains, only to receive reactions like, I don't know about that chain. This is a common pattern.

They may know the data, but whether they care about why another ecosystem does things a certain way, why users choose it, that's another thing. To say they are completely ignorant would be a serious oversight; I believe they are aware, but it may be arrogance, the "we don't need to compete" mentality: ETH killers come every cycle, and they always leave.

What the Ethereum Foundation Should Do

Laura Shin: In your ideal scenario, what should happen next? What should the EF do? Is an external organization needed? Zak, you can also talk about the ECF.

Zak Cole: The ECF's existence has always been to put pressure on the EF. Over the past year, we have delivered a lot with a small budget and a small team, focusing on Ethereum, providing some grants, building necessary public goods infrastructure and consumer-facing products.

On a longer timeline, in my ideal scenario, Vitalik and the EF would stop dilly-dallying. You can say you don't have control, you can say this is decentralization, but the courts and reality will not see your statement, they will see the results, the actual execution.

If there is a contentious fork, which chain will become the main chain? It will be the chain EF talks about because Circle and Tether will choose to redeem assets on that chain. They do not want to take legal responsibility for making their own choice, so they will follow EF, and EF ultimately follows Vitalik. That's reality. You can release many strange comics, you can say you're not responsible, but it's useless. EF is responsible.

It's okay to admit responsibility. I actually wish they would take responsibility. You created this child, so you should send the child to school. Grow up, diversify the board, bring in people from all corners of the industry who know the product better than you, understand the company better, and have more entrepreneurial experience, instead of just writing a twenty-year-old white paper and indulging in academic self-congratulation.

When Tomasz came in, everyone was excited, as it seemed like a step in the right direction, but they drove him away and went back to the infinite garden. We at the ECF created a transparency dashboard that records every penny spent, even if someone buys a paperclip, it will be in the transparency report.

We need to run Ethereum like a business. Whether you think the company is evil or not, the organization must be able to function properly. A well-functioning organization and CROPS principles are not contradictory. The companies Greg and I have run for over a decade have survived and died by these principles, but these principles have never prevented us from running the organization professionally, clearly, and scalably.

We can make institutions feel comfortable without completely selling out to the banks. We initially entered this industry not to become institutional investors or accredited investors, but because these CROPS principles drove us. However, if we cannot apply these principles to real-world business, then these principles have no real value. So make them a reality.

Whether it's the EF taking responsibility, acknowledging the need for ecosystem collaboration on pricing, ecosystem collaboration around the market, making people understand the narrative; or another organization doing it, the EF must truly relinquish control and pass the mic to others. It doesn't matter who does it, as long as they know what the scalable roadmap needs.

Laura Shin: I agree, the EF has not used ETH and ETH price as tools in its toolbox, but it could have. Zak, you are about to leave, but one last question: Vitalik said the EF will appoint new board members. Do you have any suggestions on the process, types of candidates, or specific candidates?

Zak Cole: I don't think it should be like a DAO, nor should it be decided by all ETH holders' votes. I'm not talking about extreme measures, just treat it as a real company. Introduce people representing different fields of Ethereum, who can contribute knowledge and judgment, understanding what is truly necessary. The board should also include people who understand mainstream media and PR.

If the EF doesn't want to do this, then at least stop creating PR crises that make everyone look bad. Either do it, or be quiet. You can lead, follow, or get out of the way. Right now, they seem to have chosen none of the three, which is very frustrating. I know I may sound a bit out of line, but I've been doing this for over a decade, going through one cycle after another, and seeing batch after batch of people leave.

Laura Shin: Zak, you can go ahead and leave if you need to. I would like Greg to answer the two questions that were just raised.

Zak Cole: I'll head out first. Thank you for the invitation.

Laura Shin: Thank you, Zak. It was great chatting with you. Greg, the first question is about Frank Chaparro's chart and whether you think the EF is aware of the competition.

Greg Markou: As I mentioned earlier, if absolutely no one is paying attention to these metrics, that is a dereliction of duty. Everyone is on Twitter, everyone can see what's going on, so they are aware of the competition. However, knowing that there is competition and understanding the technical edge of competitors, understanding why users make choices, are two different things. The latter may have only become more common recently.

In the past, they would say they talked to the community, but that's different from talking to actual community members who are users. Many times in history, the people they claim to have talked to are unheard of, just like no one has heard of Bastian. The situation is indeed changing, but I would be surprised if they have not seen the competition.

I just feel that many insiders don't care. They would say: we have a moat, we have DeFi, we have liquidity.

Laura Shin: My concern is that their lack of caring itself could cause Ethereum to lose in the competition. I have also said in The Defiant podcast that CROPS may win in the long term, but will it win in the short term? I think not necessarily. Because among the non-crypto people I know, the proportion entering crypto is almost zero.

Other competitors are going where these people are, reaching out to them in ways they can understand, while Ethereum continues to maintain a crypto punk attitude.

98% of people are not in this circle, and other chains and platforms are targeting ordinary people. If Ethereum loses in the short term, it may still win in the long term, but if it loses in the short term, it may also miss out on the opportunity to win in the long term. That's what worries me.

Greg Markou: You have to work hard to broaden your luck surface. Winning takes a lot of factors, and it also takes a lot of luck. You have to expand your luck surface as much as possible. To put it bluntly, Zak's assessment of that document is correct; it's bad.

If it were cleaned up into a clearer version, I would be much more satisfied, and it would also be more easily accepted by a wider range of people. Right now, it's hard to read. This lack of awareness will drive some decisions, putting Ethereum at risk of losing.

I don't think Ethereum will lose. Honestly, it has too many advantages. But the ETH price is another matter.

Laura Shin: I think if they fix the tokenomics and are truly willing to fight for Ethereum, rather than just releasing principles in a vague manner, then Ethereum will most likely win. Otherwise, I can only say, let's see if those principles magically attract people.

Finally, let's talk about the board. Since the EF does indeed want to add board members, how do you want this process to happen? What kind of people should it be, or do you have any specific candidates in mind?

Greg Markou: Systematically, we need adults in the room. I can't find information on Bastian, but looking at other EF teams, many people lack experience in managing large enterprises or organizations. Not to say they necessarily need a traditional corporate background, but you need someone who truly understands scalable business and knows what needs to change.

The EF holds 13 basis points of the total ETH supply (0.13%; previously mentioned around 0.16%), which may sound small, but it is still a significant amount of funds. They must first act as proper stewards. Secondly, I hope they continue to delegate more things to rely on other organizations to do.

Keeping it streamlined, focusing on research, that's what we need the EF to do. In the ecosystem, there are many independent, excellent teams of various budget sizes that can accomplish many things.

Regarding the board, I don't want it to continue like an internal family business, only promoting internally. That lacks observability and accountability. We should see external individuals joining, people who have truly stuck their necks out and taken risks for Ethereum over the past few years.

I'm not sure who specifically, and we should also be careful not to create another fiefdom. But I might add two or three beachhead members from different fields: for example, one or two from DeFi, or at least have observer seats on the board.

I'm not sure if this kind of arrangement exists in the Swiss foundation structure, but the concept is similar. People like Kane and Stani, although with differing stances, have long supported the network.

You can also bring in people from completely different but adjacent fields, such as someone with experience managing a large open-source organization. In a Standard & Poor's 500 company, there must be someone who has operated a large-scale organization and can provide operational advice. The key is to choose the right battlefield.

Laura Shin: I wrote about a moment in the book: they once tried to recruit Brian Behlendorf from Hyperledger, but due to political factors related to the EF executive director at the time, it was not feasible.

Greg Markou: This really illustrates the problem: it's now too much like a family business. People who have been leading these things from the outside world should be brought in. If these two things can be done, I think it will be a great help to the community.

Laura Shin: Greg, it's great to chat with you, and I'm glad Zak just joined. I know this discussion will continue, it has actually been going on for several years. Next, we will see what changes will happen to the EF. Obviously, the community's response has not been positive, and I wonder if they will take the feedback, maybe they will, maybe they won't. We'll see.