Background
Former Ethereum core developer and Geth maintainer Péter Szilágyi recently publicly disclosed a letter he sent to the leadership of the Ethereum Foundation (EF) a year and a half ago, expressing his disappointment with the EF and pointing out serious issues within the foundation, including pay inequities, conflicts of interest, and concentrated power.
It is understood that Péter Szilágyi had worked at the EF since 2016. He claims he was fired in November after discovering a "secret second Geth team." He announced a leave of absence, but in reality, he had a one-on-one conversation with Josh Stark about the team. Within 24 hours, he was fired by the EF for "threats of resignation that were unacceptable and undermined team morale." This "secret" team may refer to the Geth roll-up, publicly announced in October but never released through working channels. Furthermore, funding issues have surfaced, with Ethereum Foundation Co-Executive Director Tomasz K. Stańczak threatening to significantly reduce salaries for Geth developers. Szilagyi also mentioned that the Foundation has repeatedly attempted to spin off Geth into a private entity, but Stańczak has denied such plans. Szilagyi's previous outbursts over workload and salary issues have tested the patience of some investors. The Geth client suffers from issues such as an inability to flexibly trim storage like Bitcoin and Ethereum's L2 clients, a storage requirement of up to 700GB with no technical justification, and potential decentralization implications. Maintaining two clients also creates additional inefficiencies and complexity. The Foundation has repeatedly invited Szilagyi to return, but he declined, posing an apology as a condition. Hello everyone, Over the past few years, I've often felt insecure about Ethereum, my role on the Geth team, my role at the Ethereum Foundation (EF), and even my place in the Ethereum ecosystem as a whole. (No, I'm not resigning, at least not yet.) I've occasionally discussed various troubling issues with Felix, Martin, and occasionally Josh. These conversations always offer a temporary reprieve, but I always end up back where I started. I've even realized that I can't even articulate what my real problem is (thanks to Felix for pointing that out). So I decided to take some time to gather my thoughts, and this post is essentially a summary of those reflections (or at least I hope it will be, as I've only just started writing them). Before I say anything negative about Ethereum or any particular person, I want to emphasize that I've always believed that Ethereum is a force for positive change in the world, and that the Foundation is a virtuous force behind that change (even though I've often criticized its decisions as naive). Working for Ethereum and the Foundation has been a privilege and a highlight of my career. I'm incredibly grateful for everything I've gained financially, personally, and professionally, and I'm constantly amazed at how I've been tolerated even when I've been embarrassed (sometimes publicly). For that, I'm deeply grateful. Please don't interpret any of the following criticisms as doomsaying about Ethereum's fate, but rather as my own personal reflections on why Ethereum failed for me. My main issue with Ethereum right now is the perceived dissonance between my publicly stated role and how I’m actually treated behind the scenes. More often than not, the Foundation portrays me as someone with a “leadership role” in the ecosystem; and whenever public conflict arises, the Foundation’s stance is usually that “this is all planned” because Ethereum “values diverse perspectives.” I challenge this narrative — Dankrad summed it up very elegantly in a private message: I simply have a “perceived leadership role” (I envy his wording). In my opinion, I’m considered a “leader” simply because I’ve maintained Geth’s public image for the past nine years, because I’ve held firm to some of the less than honest actors in the past, and because I’ve been willing to publicly question those in power, sometimes even within the Foundation. People love to see action, and what better way to demonstrate "impartiality" than when someone within the foundation openly confronts the foundation? But for me personally, every outburst like this erodes my social credit and the credibility of the Geth team. Every time I push back against someone in power, more and more voices jump to their defense. For example, when I questioned Justin/Dankrad's conflict of interest, Giulio from Erigon immediately jumped to their defense, saying, "There's nothing wrong with accepting the highest bidder." Whatever the truth, I've long felt like a "useful fool" in the eyes of the foundation—a lose-lose situation for me. I could choose to remain silent and watch Geth and its values be trampled upon, allowing the big players to reshape the protocol at will. Or I could speak out, damaging my reputation every time I speak out because it would prevent someone from profiting from Ethereum. Either way, the outcome is the same: Geth (and therefore, myself) will eventually be removed from the equation. Of course, I could also just flip the table and quit—the result would be the same, just faster. For better or worse, I hold the Foundation responsible: from promoting client diversity, to designing consensus penalty mechanisms, to getting influential researchers to promote new clients that "use dirty tricks but are in the right direction." Despite being one of the earliest teams in the ecosystem (besides Vitalik himself), I haven't felt much gratitude for sticking around. The sentiment reflected well on Twitter: "Thanks for helping us build our empire, now let those who can make money take over." This is the first reason why I think Ethereum "failed" for me: we set out to build something great, but as long as enough money was on the table, we didn't hesitate to abandon our principles. This brings me to my second pain point with Ethereum: the conflict between workers and speculators. Working at the Ethereum Foundation has always been a poor financial decision. Since I initiated an "internal reform" two years ago, compensation has improved somewhat for the Geth team (for employees). But let's look at the numbers: During my first six years at Ethereum—from zero to $450 billion in market capitalization—my total compensation was $625,000 (pre-tax, total, six years, no incentives). That's a true snapshot of what it's like to be a "worker" at the Ethereum Foundation. Geth's financial situation is better now, but I'm sure other positions at the Foundation (like operations, administration, and even research) still make significantly less. This situation is a breeding ground for conflicts of interest and protocol capture. Almost all of the Foundation's early employees have long since left, as that was the only way they could earn enough to match their contributions. Those who stayed were exploited by the Foundation—because they were "in it for the faith, not the money." In the words of Vitalik, "If no one complains about being underpaid, then they're overpaid." I consider this one of the most egregious failures of Foundation leadership. The Foundation's structure, which deliberately keeps salary information secret, reinforces my belief that even if this was initially an unintentional mistake, the Foundation has now become completely reliant on it. Now that Geth's financial situation has improved, why am I bringing this up? Because the Foundation is effectively setting the stage for protocol capture. By systematically underpaying those who truly care about the protocol, EF forces the most trusted individuals to seek compensation elsewhere. I believe Justin and Dankrad's recent advisory positions are blatant conflicts of interest and potential protocol capture, and they themselves are unreasonably downplaying the risks—yes, I do. But are they being paid illicitly? No. They are simply accepting the consequences of what the Foundation has sown. The genie is out of the bottle. The Foundation has deprived every employee of "life-changing wealth" over the past decade, and any attempt to remedy this is pointless. Blinded by their own bottomless reserves, and further detached from reality by Vitalik's personal wealth, the Foundation has never considered that the people who work for them deserve a similarly comfortable life. No one objects to founders receiving a share of their success, but the Foundation — under Vitalik's leadership — has gone to great lengths to avoid paying its employees fairly. This is the second reason why Ethereum "failed" for me: the Foundation put the protocol at risk of capture, not out of malice, but out of a kind of "subtractive" idealism — a naive belief, divorced from reality, that people don't care about money. Now, let's talk about Ethereum's "high-level players." I have great respect for Vitalik, but he has become a victim of his own success. Whether he likes it or not, he has always been—and still is—determining what succeeds and what doesn't in Ethereum. His focus, the research he directs, his donations and investments, all but determine which projects succeed (with a very high probability). His opinions also directly define what is "allowed" and what isn't in the ecosystem. In other words, the rule of survival in the gray area is to make Vitalik feel "okay." Ethereum may be decentralized, but Vitalik has absolute indirect control over it. This in itself might not be a problem, but over the past decade, the entire ecosystem has exploited this phenomenon. In the early days of the foundation, founders and early holders fought openly and covertly for power and influence. Later, meeting attendees realized that the key to success lay with Vitalik, and everyone worked to "contain" him. Ultimately, this evolved into a small inner circle of "Ethereum thought leaders"—a group of five to ten individuals who invest in or serve as advisors to nearly every project. Today, success comes down to getting the approval of those few key players (or Vitalik himself) (think Farcaster). At this point, the problem isn't Vitalik himself anymore; we've truly formed a "ruling elite" within Ethereum. New projects no longer raise funds publicly; instead, they go directly to the same five to ten familiar faces for investment or advisory positions. Everyone understands: if you can get Bankless to invest, they'll sing its praises on podcasts; if you can get researchers as advisors, you'll not only solve technical problems but also mitigate the risk of friction with the Ethereum mainnet. The key to the gray area is getting those five people to agree. Look at every new project, and you'll see the same group of people pushing each other forward. And zoom in a little, and you'll see the same one to three venture capital firms behind it. This is the third reason why I consider Ethereum a failure: We aspired to create a world where everyone is equal, but today the most successful projects are backed by the same 5–10 people, who are backed by the same venture capitalists. All power is concentrated in Vitalik's circle of friends. The direction of Ethereum ultimately depends on your relationship with Vitalik. It's simple: people are more tolerant of their friends than outsiders—so, to succeed, befriend the "kingmakers." I've chosen to remain distant because I find the idea of making friends for money disgusting; yet, I'm deeply pained because this is the reality of our "trustless little empire." As for where all this will lead us? I honestly don't know. I don't believe Ethereum is irreparable. I don't see any way to reverse it. I feel like the Foundation's loyalty is irrevocably broken. I feel like Vitalik, despite his good intentions, has created a ruling class that never relinquishes power. You either go along with the crowd or get sidelined (at least they pay you well). As for Geth, I feel like we've been labeled a "problem" within the larger Ethereum landscape—and I'm right at the center of that problem—so I don't see any future for myself fighting this. Over the years, I've turned down many insanely high-paying offers to stay with Ethereum. This has always been the "right mindset" the Foundation has promoted. However, the entire Ethereum ecosystem has now unanimously decided, "This is just a business." I can't accept that mindset. I also question whether I can remain in the ecosystem if I leave either Ethereum or the Foundation. So, I'm currently stuck between two difficult choices. Let's wait and see how the future unfolds. With best wishes,
Peter
Joy
Brian
Kikyo
Alex