Days after the sudden departure of several high-profile Ethereum Foundation researchers and contributors, EF’s silence only deepens uncertainty in the Ethereum community.
According to some community members, what started earlier this week as a shock over the exits of more core figures has now morphed into something more existential: public soul-searching over whether Ethereum’s most influential institution still understands the ecosystem it is meant to govern.
The foundation has not yet provided a detailed explanation for the departures or responded to what many have pointed to in the past few weeks as growing criticism of its leadership and strategic direction. In this vacuum, community members, investors, and former insiders have begun to write their own narratives about what went wrong with EF and what this might mean for the future of Ethereum.
On Thursday, former Ethereum Foundation researcher Dankrad Feist issued one of the clearest statements yet, articulating a growing sentiment among critics: Ethereum’s governance and institutional structure are fundamentally at odds with the economic interests of the network itself.
“The way to save Ethereum is for the community to create an organization that is economically aligned with and accountable to Ethereum,” Feist wrote on X.
Feist believes that although EF has a cultural impact, it does not have as much economic impact on the ecosystem. He wrote that the foundation now controls “less than 0.1% of ETH” and receives no direct staking or fee revenue from the network.
“If we want Ethereum to win again,” he said, the ecosystem needs a new body with permanent funding, clear accountability and leadership focused on growth. His proposal includes the creation of a $1 billion treasury partially funded by staking revenue and overseen by a board of directors motivated by seeing ETH appreciate in value.
‘original sin’
Cryptocurrency journalist Laura Shin, host of the Unchained podcast, put the issue more bluntly.
“I think Ethereum’s original sin was not taking token economics into account every step of the way from Dencun,” Shin wrote on
The “ultrasonic currency” thesis, the idea that ETH will become increasingly scarce through fee burning, was once central to the Ethereum investment narrative. But critics argue that Ethereum’s scaling roadmap, particularly its embrace of rollups and lower base layer fees, undermines this momentum without providing token holders with a compelling alternative narrative.
“Most people,” Shin writes, “are unwilling to believe something that cannot be scored on the scoreboard.”
Her comments reflect a broader frustration emerging from some corners of the Ethereum community: that Ethereum is too focused on ideology and not on competition, business development, and ETH price performance.
“When the main product becomes ideological/communist and money/token economics/capitalism is ignored,” she writes, “peasants revolt.”
Others pointed to EF’s recent internal controversies, including an alleged “power of attorney” that some contributors were asked to sign, as well as lingering questions about recent leadership appointments and decision-making processes within the foundation.
In the absence of direct communication from EF, speculation is increasingly focused on what role new executive leadership might play in the departure, and whether the exit reflects a deeper cultural shift underway within Ethereum’s most important institution.
“I personally think it would not be a good thing for Ethereum if its most competitive people leave,” Shin wrote. “Ethereum’s unwillingness to stem the brain drain will only benefit its competitors, or spawn new competitors.”
Read more: ‘What happened to EF?’ Ethereum community searches for answers after high-profile departures
