Vitalik Criticizes Pumpfun, Sparking Debate on Values: Which Matters More, PMF or Ethics?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Vitalik Criticizes Pumpfun, Sparking Debate on Values: Which Matters More, PMF or Ethics?
Ideals do not follow the wind; positions are not compromised.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsCompiled by: Wu Shuo Blockchain
This episode of "The Chopping Block" focuses on the controversy sparked by Vitalik's public criticism on Farcaster of projects like Pump.fun, triggering ideological clashes and舆论 turbulence within the Ethereum community and across external ecosystems such as Solana and Base. Four guests — Haseeb (Managing Partner at Dragonfly), Tom (DeFi expert), Robert (Founder of Superstate), and Tarun (Founder & CEO of Gauntlet) — engage in a debate over whether product-market fit (PMF) or moral judgment holds greater weight. From perspectives including technological neutrality, on-chain freedom, L1 governance philosophy, and the evolution of Ethereum’s narrative, they explore whether Vitalik has the right to conduct a "moral judgment" on Web3 applications, and how the community should understand the tension between being a project founder and an industry thought leader. Amid criticism and resonance, the show redefines Vitalik’s unique position in the crypto industry: ideals unswayed by trends, stances not tailored for popularity.
The Moral Debate Triggered by Vitalik's Criticism of Pump.fun
Haseeb: Let's talk about what recently happened in the Ethereum community. Once again, Ethereum circles are embroiled in controversy. The Ethereum Foundation has gone through quite a few personnel changes lately.
The incident began with a cast posted by Vitalik on Farcaster. In it, Vitalik criticized certain L1 blockchains for lacking moral positions — a so-called “lack of philosophical foundation” — unclear about why they're building an L1 chain, and without clear principles guiding which applications they should build or what role blockchain should play in the world.
He made an analogy: Suppose C++ were designed by authoritarian, racist, fascist programmers — would that make the language worse? Probably not, because C++ is a general-purpose language and hard to taint ideologically. But Ethereum L1 is different. If you don’t believe in decentralization at all, you wouldn't push for light clients, data availability layers, account abstraction, or spend ten years advancing the PoS transition.
He then pointed out that 80% of Ethereum applications are special-purpose, and what you choose to build largely depends on your vision for Ethereum’s role in the world. Therefore, having the right philosophy here is critically important.
Haseeb: Then he gave examples of “good” and “bad” projects — good ones being Railgun, Farcaster, Polymarket, Signald; bad ones being Pump.fun, Terra, and FTX. This part ignited strong backlash from both the Ethereum community and non-Ethereum camps. People started asking: Is Vitalik now setting the “moral standard” for the entire industry? Tarun, what do you think?
Tarun: First, I’d say this controversy isn’t purely “Ethereum vs non-Ethereum.” More accurately, three camps are speaking up: Ethereum, Solana, and Base. Interestingly, Base and Solana are aligned here, opposing Vitalik labeling Pump.fun as “negative.”
For example, Jesse Pollak (a key figure at Base) sees Pump.fun as essentially a betting market combining internet content and attention economics — a model widely accepted in their ecosystem, similar to Zora.
In the Solana community, the prevailing value is more libertarian: if you want to play, go ahead — even if it’s casino-style games — as long as you accept the risks, it’s your choice. In contrast, the Ethereum community typically emphasizes the “moral positioning” of apps — like building privacy tools (e.g., Railgun) or decentralized prediction markets (e.g., Polymarket).
Haseeb: And Vitalik cited Polymarket and Farcaster as good examples, right?
Tarun: Yes. But I really want to point out: I checked Railgun’s on-chain data, and its user base is actually very small. So why should such a project be considered a “moral benchmark”? Isn’t this evaluation itself selectively biased?
Tom: Railgun’s low adoption might also stem from some “external factors.”
Value Conflicts Between Ethereum and Solana Communities on “Acceptable Applications”
Tarun: True, there are external factors involved. But my point is, the current situation feels somewhat like “royal decree” — whatever Vitalik says becomes gospel truth. The problem is, even L2 app developers and DeFi practitioners within the Ethereum ecosystem are publicly criticizing him, indicating his remarks aren’t well received even internally.
I think many Ethereum app developers acknowledge Pump.fun may have exploitative aspects, yet it also introduced novel interaction models that people genuinely enjoy using. There’s a deep divide within Ethereum: some believe any app posing negative externalities to the L1 should be rejected, but in the Solana world, that view doesn’t hold — they prefer letting the market decide.
Haseeb: Do you think he’d apply the same standard to Satoshi Dice back in the day?
Tarun: Great question. Satoshi Dice was an early Bitcoin gambling app where users could bet BTC directly. I think Vitalik’s stance has evolved. Based on my observation over the past decade, he probably wasn’t as negative toward such things before, but his current position is clearly stricter.
What fascinates me most is that many Ethereum developers who would normally never publicly criticize Vitalik are now collectively speaking out — showing this “moral critique” really struck a nerve.
Haseeb: Tom, what’s your take?
Tom: My view is that Vitalik has never been great at “picking apps.” The apps he likes tend to be poorly executed. While I understand his support for Polymarket, he previously championed Augur too — suggesting he’s ideologically fixated on prediction markets rather than having sound product judgment.
To me, this whole thing feels like “who cares?” Even if Vitalik openly expresses these views, it won’t change the technical direction of Ethereum or Solana. Solana wasn’t built to support Pump.fun, nor was Ethereum created to stop it. These are outcomes of natural ecosystem evolution, not deliberate design choices.
Different chains have different vibes because communities with differing values are drawn to them — not due to differences in technical capabilities. Ultimately, this is more a cultural clustering effect than a function of technical traits.
Is Vitalik Qualified to Conduct “Moral Judgments” on On-Chain Applications?
Haseeb: Anatoly (Solana co-founder) responded to the controversy with: “When you lack product-market fit (PMF), you start doing politics.” That was his comment on the whole affair.
Tarun: But I think the reverse also holds: sometimes, when you achieve extremely strong PMF, “politics” emerge anyway. Look at Bridgewater or Facebook — places so successful they inevitably descend into internal conflict, policy-making, and power struggles. So Anatoly’s statement feels overly simplistic; both scenarios can lead to politicization.
Tom: I also find it ironic. Solana initially pitched “putting NASDAQ on-chain,” but now it’s known as “the meme coin chain.” Then the community says, “That’s your identity now — stick with it till you die.” If you try to evolve beyond that, people say you’re irrelevant. It reminds me of that robot in *Rick and Morty* whose only purpose is passing butter — “That’s your mission.”
Haseeb: Robert, what do you think about this?
Robert: As an app developer, I honestly don’t care about the “philosophy” of Ethereum, Solana, Arbitrum, or any chain. What matters to me is: what can I build on this chain? What DeFi tools exist? What’s the throughput? Are transaction costs high? Is the ecosystem well-integrated?
Moral judgments are entirely irrelevant to me. I didn’t pay much attention to what Vitalik said. To me, this issue isn’t significant — arguably, it’s trivial.
Haseeb: So do you see the “overreaction” to Vitalik’s comments as performative?
Robert: To some extent, yes. Especially among those not building real products — they have little actual work to do, so they generate discourse around controversial topics. We’ve seen this pattern too many times.
Haseeb: Indeed. Founders deeply immersed in building have far more pressing concerns. A slightly uncomfortable post from Vitalik on Farcaster isn’t a big deal. If you’re constantly distracted by things like this, you probably aren’t focusing on more important tasks.
Evaluating Vitalik’s Commitment to Ideals Over Market Appeal
Haseeb: Personally, I deeply respect Vitalik’s consistency. This isn’t a recent shift in stance — he’s always been a missionary-type figure. From Ethereum’s inception, this has been an ideologically driven, idealistic project for him, and it remains so today.
Many feel disappointed because they expect him to become more like an “entrepreneur” or “politician.” But Vitalik hasn’t followed Obama’s path — from a Chicago community organizer to Democratic leader to U.S. President. People often say, “Look, he’s completely changed from who he once was.” Vitalik is the opposite — he never became the “President of Ethereum,” never abandoned his early beliefs after success. He didn’t delete his old blog posts or transform into Ethereum’s gas station attendant, the loudest “ETH №1 cheerleader” obsessed solely with price pumps.
Many others in the Ethereum ecosystem did change after achieving success — but Vitalik didn’t. I respect his consistency. He’d say the same five years ago, says it now, and likely will say it five years from now. He insists Ethereum should serve specific ideals, not become a platform where anything profitable is acceptable.
I see it like a national leader saying, “I believe casinos are harmful to society; we should reduce their number.” You might counter: “But lotteries and casinos generate massive government revenue!” Yet he’d reply: “I know — but I still believe they’re bad.” He has the right to think that, and the legitimacy to express it. I respect that.
Haseeb: In summary, I understand why some are upset by Vitalik’s remarks, but I believe it mostly stems from a “misunderstanding.” They treat Vitalik as Ethereum’s CEO rather than a principle-driven thinker.
To me, he’s more like Geoffrey Hinton in the field of crypto — the godfather of AI. He’s a source of ideas, but you don’t need to treat his words as law, nor seek his endorsement.
Look at projects publicly endorsed by Vitalik — many haven’t achieved major success. His approval doesn’t dictate market direction. Vitalik is just Vitalik. He can say whatever he wants, and I’ll always respect him — but that doesn’t mean I’ll let him decide my product roadmap, nor should you.
Tom: I really liked a tweet from Bingie in response: “I’m sure Tim Berners-Lee isn’t a huge fan of Pornhub either. That’s fine. It’s okay that Vitalik doesn’t like Pump.fun.”
Haseeb: Exactly — a perfect summary. Vitalik is the elder statesman of crypto. He doesn’t need to like your project, and his disapproval doesn’t mean you can’t survive.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
吴说区块链
