Interview with an Ethereum OG Blue-Chip Developer: From Technical Idealism to Governance Challenges, Tracing Ethereum's Decade-Long Evolution
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Interview with an Ethereum OG Blue-Chip Developer: From Technical Idealism to Governance Challenges, Tracing Ethereum's Decade-Long Evolution
Ethereum is not suitable for ordinary users.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsCompilation & Translation: TechFlow
Guest: Sun Ming, Partner and General Counsel at Fenbushi Capital, online alias "Gao Suzhi Lanling" (High-Quality Blue-Collar)
Hosts:
Liu Feng, Partner at BODL Ventures, former Editor-in-Chief of ChainNews
Xiong Haojun Jack, Deputy Editor at BlockBeats, host of "Web3 Wuming Shuo"
Podcast Source: Web3 101
Original Title: E63｜Ethereum's New Clothes
Release Date: September 22, 2025
Key Takeaways
This episode revisits pivotal moments in Ethereum’s decade-long evolution with OG member “Gao Suzhi Lanling” — the legal architect behind Wanxiang’s legendary early investment in Ethereum and a long-time supporter who lost the private key to a wallet holding 8,000 ETH. The discussion covers Ethereum’s technical roadmap, its enduring and shifting core narratives, the fundamental value of Ethereum as a public blockchain, and critiques and misunderstandings surrounding the Ethereum Foundation and ecosystem in this market cycle.
Highlights of Key Insights
-
Human society greatly needs such completely neutral entities, which are nearly non-existent in reality. Therefore, once something like this emerges, it becomes extremely scarce.
-
Credible neutrality is Ethereum’s most unique and valuable trait. Even under political pressure, the Ethereum Foundation has maintained a stance of political neutrality.
-
Earlier this year, on Twitter or other media, several prominent project founders or investment firm leaders expressed admiration for Trump, with no one willing to distance themselves from the Trump administration. At that time, only Vitalik and the Ethereum Foundation clearly maintained political neutrality. If even the Ethereum Foundation had made statements catering to the Trump administration, I would likely have sold all my crypto holdings.
-
Many people thought Trump would save the crypto world—now that seems laughable.
-
Layer 2 is an inevitable future trend. Mainstream commercial institutions need a relatively closed environment to prevent the value they generate from being captured by token holders on the mainnet.
-
Layer 2 cannot be fully decentralized—it may become increasingly centralized.
-
If all Layer 2s are categorized as general-purpose Rollups, winner-takes-all dynamics will emerge. But in the future, there may be various Layer 2s serving different business scenarios.
-
Ethereum is not suitable for ordinary users.
-
The Ethereum Foundation’s mission is unrelated to Wall Street taking control. They remain focused on executing their own technical roadmap. Price is not particularly important to them, despite external pressures arising from price movements.
Losing the Private Key to a Wallet Containing 8,000 ETH
Liu Feng:
Today’s podcast mainly revolves around Ethereum—a topic we’ve prepared for a long time, yet struggled to decide who should join us. Ethereum is a project many love and hate. It was once a vibrant, creative ecosystem attracting countless fearless developers. However, many are disappointed by its token performance. Recently, Ethereum has gained new narratives. We’ve invited Lanling, who has witnessed Ethereum’s growth firsthand, to discuss what’s changed and where it’s headed.
Sun Ming:
Hello everyone, I’m Gao Suzhi Lanling, also General Counsel at Fenbushi Capital. Thank you.
Liu Feng:
I remember you lost the private key to a wallet—about one or two years ago, maybe three—containing 1,000 ETH, right?
Sun Ming:
Actually, it was 8,000. I still occasionally check that address. But it’s unrecoverable—the recovery phrase is truly gone, no matter how hard I search.
Looking Back 11 Years: Ethereum’s Vision Seemed “Too Good to Be True”
Liu Feng:
Could you share when you first encountered Ethereum? As we know, when Vitalik first came to China to raise funds, he was helped by Mr. Shen Bo of Fenbushi and Dr. Xiao Feng of Wanxiang. I believe you were also a key figure behind the scenes.
Sun Ming:
Yes, I got involved at the end of 2014 and beginning of 2015, primarily through Shen Bo’s recommendation. At the time, I was researching an older project called Bitshares. There was a Chinese community studying Bitshares, mostly interested in using blockchain for applications rather than just storing value like Bitcoin. Studying Bitshares made sense because many of its concepts—like DEXs, stablecoins, and Oracles—are still relevant today, having been explored early on by Bitshares.
The implementation methods in Bitshares may differ from today’s, but the key point is that these ideas were first proposed and had practical pathways. Shen Bo told me there was now something more abstract than Bitshares—an abstraction that wasn’t just more generalized but truly universal: Ethereum. He recommended I look into it. I’m not a technical expert, so I might not grasp all the details, but the vision it aimed to achieve was revolutionary, even by today’s standards.
This connects back to our Bitshares research. While Bitshares introduced many concepts, it had a major flaw: it wasn’t an abstract smart contract platform. In Bitshares, all DApps were built directly by the chain’s developers—tightly coupled and hardcoded. There was no way for third parties to deploy contracts on-chain.
Liu Feng:
So 11 years ago, seeing Ethereum’s grand vision must have felt entirely different, right?
Sun Ming:
Totally different—and revolutionary. Sometimes it felt “too good to be true”—could such an ambitious idea actually be realized? When I first saw it, I was skeptical and couldn’t quite believe it could really work.
Liu Feng:
Lanling took us back 11 years—from the Bitshares era to Ethereum’s initial vision. I think it’s important to remember his description of Bitshares’ development model: applications were built exclusively by the chain’s own developers. We might revisit this when comparing today’s blockchains, especially Layer 1 ecosystems. Another point: Lanling has been watching Ethereum since its infancy.
I suspect the legal agreement for China’s earliest investors backing Vitalik’s Ethereum was reviewed by you?
Sun Ming:
Yes, the agreement for Wanxiang’s investment in Ethereum was drafted by me.
Liu Feng:
I recently interviewed Dr. Xiao. He recalled the moment he decided to invest $500,000 in Vitalik’s Ethereum. Lanling was the key person behind the legal review of that investment agreement.
From here, I hope everyone understands your deep ties to Ethereum. I’d love to hear your personal reflections—how would you summarize the most significant changes you’ve observed over nearly 11 years of Ethereum’s journey?
Sun Ming:
There have been several turning points worth remembering, each significantly impacting Ethereum’s development. The first was Ethereum’s hard fork in 2016.
Liu Feng:
That followed the DAO hack, when the community voted to perform a hard fork—a dark chapter shortly after Ethereum’s birth.
Sun Ming:
The community was indeed in a difficult state. Around May 2016, Vitalik attended a blockchain and Ethereum conference in Shanghai. I could tell he was extremely tense. Throughout the event, he seemed distracted, constantly working on his laptop and replying to messages—likely about resolving the crisis. Strictly speaking, the issue wasn’t with Ethereum itself, but it had a massive impact on the network.
Liu Feng:
At the time, the DAO was the central ecosystem application, and its fundraising had pooled vast amounts of ETH. But they hadn’t disclosed the incident publicly, right?
Sun Ming:
Correct. I learned about it before full disclosure, though some others already knew. As a community participant, I wondered how I should position myself. Though I didn’t invest in Slock.it, the situation felt huge. So when such a major event occurred, I considered how I’d vote if the community chose not to fork.
Liu Feng:
In the end, the hard fork went ahead, rolling back transactions—an event still debated ten years later.
Sun Ming:
But I wonder why people criticize this? A hard fork doesn’t erase anyone’s assets—it was simply a community choice. And since ETC still exists, anyone supporting that chain retains the right to maintain and use its code. Essentially, it just gave ordinary users a choice—no rights were taken away.
This was the first historically significant moment that left a strong impression. The second event of similar magnitude was earlier this year—Trump’s inauguration, which seemingly had little to do with crypto. Yet during that period, many crypto figures began praising Trump, especially project founders.
At the time, I felt pessimistic—this industry had clearly lost its revolutionary spirit. Almost all participants seemed like speculators. You could see on Twitter and elsewhere, prominent project founders and fund leaders openly supporting Trump, none distancing themselves from his administration. Only Vitalik and the Ethereum Foundation explicitly maintained political neutrality. If even the Ethereum Foundation had made statements appeasing Trump’s government, I likely would have sold all my holdings.
Many believed Trump would save the crypto world. Now, that feels somewhat ridiculous.
Ethereum’s Unique Value: Credible Neutrality
Liu Feng:
We don’t want to dive too deep into politics, but I’m glad you highlighted Vitalik and the Ethereum Foundation’s clear stance on neutrality. This is crucial, as we’ll likely return to this theme later.
Your mention of these two moments moved me, especially the second. It makes me ask: why does this neutrality make you stay committed to Ethereum?
Sun Ming:
It’s deeply tied to Ethereum’s revolutionary ideals. I dislike holding mediocre things—many blockchain projects seem average to me. Not necessarily technically inferior, but their founding principles limit them to offering easily replicable value. In contrast, achieving “credible neutrality” is rare in today’s business and social landscapes. Almost everything carries political bias.
As a lawyer, I study politics and law extensively. I can confidently say academia is almost always politically biased—positions often come first. In today’s world, finding any entity striving for neutrality—even an organization or group—is exceptionally rare and precious.
Liu Feng:
So in your view, Ethereum’s absolute and genuine neutrality is a key trait.
Sun Ming:
Yes, such entities—whether Ethereum or beyond blockchain—possess unique value. Human society desperately needs fully neutral systems, yet they’re nearly absent in reality. Once such a thing appears, it becomes extremely scarce.
Liu Feng:
You’ve given this trait high praise, calling it Ethereum’s greatest value. But I must say, not everyone agrees.
Sun Ming:
Of course not—everyone has their views. This is just mine. I tend to read deeply in politics and history. Even in academia, research is usually driven by political positions, even if unstated. Research without political bias is often criticized as nihilism.
Liu Feng:
Yet increasingly, people argue that Ethereum’s neutrality has cost it opportunities—that its narrative isn’t compelling enough.
Sun Ming:
From my observation, many do believe this, but it’s just a small historical ripple. I still hold a long-term, philosophical view: certain things must exist long-term in human society, even if they serve as counterweights to opposing forces.
Liu Feng:
That’s exactly the value we often talk about in Crypto. If Crypto doesn’t serve as a hedge against the real world, it has no reason to exist.
Sun Ming:
Many things can replace it—centralized internet works fine. But like the relationship between gold and the dollar system: the dollar system functions well, yet gold must always exist as a counterbalance.
Ethereum’s Narrative Hasn’t Changed, But Its Roadmap Has Evolved Significantly Over Ten Years
Liu Feng:
Ethereum’s core value has remained constant. But I should note: the narrative built around this core value has kept changing. Could you briefly trace how Ethereum’s core narrative has evolved?
Sun Ming:
The term “narrative” itself is a relatively recent translation. When Ethereum first emerged, people didn’t call it a “narrative”—they used the more idealistic term “vision,” like “world computer.” This broad vision still exists, but practically, it must be implemented step-by-step, broken down into concrete tasks.
Has the narrative changed dramatically? I don’t think so. Fundamentally, it’s the roadmap that has changed significantly over the past decade. There are many reasons. After proposing a roadmap, real-world testing—over one, two, or three years—often reveals dead ends. Sometimes not literal dead ends, but insurmountable challenges at that historical stage. So they must explore more feasible alternatives. This mirrors any social revolution—initial plans can’t be rigidly followed forever; adjustments are inevitable.
The first major shift came in 2015, when sharding was seen as the solution to scalability. Later, it became clear sharding was too difficult to implement. I remember in 2015, in Shen Bo’s office, “Baozou Gongqinwang” (founder of Blockchain Lead Pencil) asked when a decentralized exchange (DEX) could run on Ethereum. Vitalik said it would require sharding for sufficient speed—maybe three years.
Baozou was building a DEX startup—waiting three years wasn’t viable. Three years passed, and history proved such scalability couldn’t be achieved then, forcing a pivot. Eventually, they adopted a Layer 2-focused scaling strategy—a roadmap met with mixed reactions.
Liu Feng:
I recall this strategy—Rollup—was introduced around late 2018 or 2019 at an ETH meetup in Taipei.
Sun Ming:
By then, Rollup was mature. The original path wasn’t Rollup but Plasma. Joseph Poon first proposed Plasma, but practice showed limited effectiveness. So they developed Rollup, which worked better, cementing it as the primary Layer 2 solution. Of course, Layer 2 isn’t just Rollup—many other technologies exist. The evolution of this path has been substantial.
Is “Layer 2-Centric” Right or Wrong?
Liu Feng:
This revised roadmap, focusing on Rollup-based scaling, has profoundly impacted Ethereum’s ecosystem. Today, Ethereum’s main ecosystem is defined by L1 plus Rollup L2s, with all apps built atop. But recently, this roadmap has shifted again. Can you explain the latest changes?
Sun Ming:
Recently, both internally at the Ethereum Foundation and among external observers, there’s growing consensus that focus should return to enhancing L1 scalability. Honestly, from my view, community perception may be skewed. This doesn’t negate Layer 2’s necessity—enhancing L1 won’t undermine L2. Personally, Layer 2 is an inevitable future trend—not a technical issue, but a business logic one.
Mainstream commercial institutions won’t deploy DApps on L1. They need a relatively closed environment to prevent the value they create from being captured by L1 token holders. This is basic business logic, especially in finance, where many regulatory requirements necessitate Layer 2. Meeting these regulations is nearly impossible on L1, as adding features to prevent privacy leaks and ensure KYC on a public mainnet is impractical.
Putting everything on Layer 2 means customization may lead to many L2s being developed and operated by centralized commercial entities.
Liu Feng:
So according to your view, in the future, many application-focused L2s could exist in customized forms.
Sun Ming:
Yes, and they’ll likely be centrally operated—especially in centralized ways, like Base. Meanwhile, the mainnet fulfills the role of global settlement layer for the “world computer”—an ideal setup. The mainnet provides data availability for all L2s and offers some trustless, decentralized infrastructure, though complete trustlessness is unattainable.
Jack:
I strongly agree with what Professor Lanling mentioned—many institutions need customized chains, a logic proven over the past couple of years. In finance, institutions like JPMorgan, when experimenting with blockchain, prefer structures like Avalanche, which offer subnet technology allowing them to build fully isolated, custom ecosystems at the base layer.
Sun Ming:
Recently, we’ve seen projects like Google Cloud Universal Ledger and Stripe Tempo. These function as L1s, unrelated to decentralization—they essentially provide a public ledger, enabling transparency so third parties can trust the data. For use cases needing only transparency, not immutability, solutions like Google Cloud suffice.
Different business models create different demands. Some scenarios require immutability, but not all.
Liu Feng:
But people ask: why build on Ethereum? I can just make it EVM-compatible.
Sun Ming:
This brings us back to the foundational philosophical question: what unique value do you offer? If all Web 2 products/services can be perfectly replicated, companies can independently develop transparent systems. But in scenarios requiring immutability, building a custom L1 may not be feasible.
Liu Feng:
So you believe this leads some enterprises to build their own L1?
Sun Ming:
Yes, different business scenarios mean Web3 doesn’t fully replace Web2, but offers values Web2 can’t provide. Irreplaceable value exists on a spectrum—some cases demand full trustlessness, others only transparency.
Liu Feng:
Does Ethereum’s character still attract large commercial enterprises? Can you cite scenarios where this trait matters?
Sun Ming:
It’s attractive in specific scenarios, but immutability has costs—not every case needs it. For example, situations requiring irrefutable historical records, or trust between distrustful nations, especially adversaries. Here, merely seeing a ledger isn’t enough—you must ensure it’s tamper-proof.
Trustlessness comes at a high cost, so not every business model needs it. Ethereum provides this capability where full trustlessness is essential, but it won’t realistically take over all Web 2 business scenarios.
Liu Feng:
In that case, how should we view Ethereum? How can it truly gain such users?
Sun Ming:
Gaining users is a business logic challenge, but the Ethereum Foundation isn’t skilled at this. Their role isn’t招商引资 (investment promotion), but to focus on developing what they want.
Liu Feng:
This explains why companies like Etherealize have emerged. Can you briefly introduce Etherealize? Have you invested in them?
Sun Ming:
No investment—just familiar. Etherealize’s founder recognized the Ethereum Foundation isn’t a commercial entity and doesn’t know how to attract institutional adoption. Other project foundations might handle this, but Etherealize focuses specifically on helping large institutions enter the Ethereum ecosystem.
Liu Feng:
So Etherealize promotes Ethereum to large institutions and helps them onboard.
Sun Ming:
In large institutions’ products and services, certain parts benefit from Ethereum’s unique value. Early work by the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance went in this direction. Initially, big enterprises thought they couldn’t use public chains directly, so they chose permissioned chains. Later, permissioned chains proved not very successful, though they retain value in niche markets.
Today, the line between institutions and public chains is blurring. Institutions can now use public chains via certain methods—L2s or otherwise. So organizations like Ethereum Trust now promote public chains over permissioned ones to large institutions.
Liu Feng:
This shows the Ethereum Foundation is starting to recognize this issue. Though historically not an investment promoter, it’s now supporting third-party teams reaching out to large institutions.
Sun Ming:
Yes, the Ethereum Foundation recognizes this gap, and while it’s not an investment body, market players have emerged to fill it.
What Is the Ethereum Foundation (EF) Doing? Why Is It Criticized?
Liu Feng:
Since we’re on the topic, could you explain the positioning and role of the Ethereum Foundation (EF)? Over the past one to two years, EF has faced heavy criticism. What exactly does EF do?
Sun Ming:
Yes—since there’s no other target, EF becomes the scapegoat. Criticism often links to price drops, but objectively, price fluctuations aren’t EF’s fault.
The Ethereum Foundation primarily handles research and sets high-level roadmaps. While it has internal coders, most coding—especially client development—is done by third-party teams outside EF.
Liu Feng:
So EF’s role is more about foundational research and strategic direction, not direct implementation.
Sun Ming:
Exactly. It shares research openly with teams and individuals willing to join the Ethereum ecosystem. EF has no authority to command anyone—its influence comes through funding and moral leadership. EF’s governance model is unique: it doesn’t subsidize nodes, so it can’t control developers or node operators.
But this model has clear trade-offs. Lower efficiency is a real issue. Over the past two years, critics label EF as bureaucratic. In part, this stems from poor price performance making EF a convenient scapegoat. Yet the bureaucracy critique holds some truth—any organization develops it, and EF lacks strength in internal governance and management, leading to bloat and inefficiency.
Another issue: who speaks for Ethereum? Community misunderstanding makes EF seem like the sole representative, though EF controls nothing. The community must realize EF isn’t the only voice—other third-party organizations also play roles.
Liu Feng:
EF played a big role in setting roadmaps, but constant adjustments create frustration.
Sun Ming:
Roadmap adjustments are normal. I don’t think EF made major errors here. For example, pivoting to Layer 2 and embracing ZK tech were correct moves.
Liu Feng:
Some criticize that EF has attracted Ethereum enthusiasts who profit under EF’s name.
Sun Ming:
This happens, partly due to EF’s unclear positioning. The community needs clarity on EF’s responsibilities to better distinguish which projects EF supports and which don’t.
Liu Feng:
Which organizations can now take over some of EF’s functions?
Sun Ming:
Client development teams are obvious examples. Organizations like Etherealize focus on commercial onboarding. EF is clarifying its role—tasks outside its scope should be handled by others.
Jack:
If more participants join the Ethereum ecosystem, could technical roadmaps be discussed by more people?
Sun Ming:
That’s a great governance question. Decentralized governance has no proven success model. EF is exploring better approaches. Setting the roadmap remains a core EF task, though Vitalik’s opinion carries significant weight.
Jack:
If large Wall Street institutions want to influence Ethereum’s technical direction, how might they do so?
Sun Ming:
They might form a second foundation akin to EF to set their own roadmap. If coordination fails, they could theoretically hard fork—but whether such a fork gains consensus is questionable.
Liu Feng:
This reflects a typical decentralized organization, yet decisions remain centralized—everyone looks to leaders like Vitalik.
Sun Ming:
When setting roadmaps, Vitalik’s personal influence and community consensus are both crucial foundations.
Are Layer 2s Vampires?
Liu Feng:
We’ve discussed EF at length. Now let’s return to the Layer 2-centric scaling approach. This has sparked controversy—many claim L2s are “vampires” draining Ethereum. What’s your take?
Sun Ming:
This criticism exists—many feel L2s don’t pay enough “rent” to Ethereum’s mainnet. It’s a valid concern—neither entirely right nor wrong.
Factual reality: L2s pay very little rent to the mainnet—less than expected. From Vitalik and EF’s perspective, they don’t want to charge excessive fees, as that could imbalance the ecosystem.
Vitalik emphasizes public goods—he wants transaction fees to be minimal. But centralized sequencers in L2s allow them to capture higher profits. This creates tension between mainnet and L2 incentives—the biggest challenge ahead.
Mainnet rent may not be as low as imagined, but L2 fees are too high. EF’s philosophy is to leave value with end users, so L2s should charge less.
The path to L2 decentralization is long. I believe L2s cannot be fully decentralized—they’ll likely grow more centralized.
Liu Feng:
Does this mean their sequencers won’t decentralize either?
Sun Ming:
Only a few L2s may pursue decentralization. It’s a tough problem—EF can’t solve it.
Liu Feng:
Vitalik’s vision is for the mainnet to keep fees low, but in practice, benefits flow to L2s, not end users.
Sun Ming:
And L2 fee models lack transparency—EF can’t control their behavior. Unless competition among L2s alleviates this, but that’s no silver bullet.
If all L2s are classified as general-purpose Rollups, winner-takes-all dynamics will emerge. But the future may bring diverse L2s tailored to different business scenarios.
Liu Feng:
Ideally, the L2 ecosystem would coexist with users and revenue, feeding back to the mainnet. But in reality, this doesn’t seem to happen.
Sun Ming:
I expect some fully centralized commercial firms to operate these L2s—examples like Base. If Ethereum offers more technical options, current issues might ease, but ultimately the market decides. Still, I’ve long believed Ethereum isn’t really suitable for ordinary users.
Is the “Institutional Adoption” Story Credible?
Liu Feng:
Today, people keep telling Ethereum’s story—that it’s better suited for institutions, the best settlement layer for RWA or other institutional use cases. This is becoming Ethereum’s new narrative.
Sun Ming:
Yes, at least in DeFi, it still holds irreplaceable advantages, because DeFi genuinely needs them.
Liu Feng:
Full neutrality, complete immutability—truly ensuring asset security. When Etherealize promotes Ethereum to institutions, they emphasize: “This is the most secure chain after Bitcoin, a truly decentralized, trustless platform.” As you said, Ethereum may not suit retail散户; its future lies with large institutions, especially financial ones.
This circles back to the original question: we loved Ethereum initially because of its immense potential—its appeal to native developers and crypto-native users. But under this new narrative and logic, aren’t we returning to the world of courting Trump? Isn’t that contradictory?
Sun Ming:
You could say it’s a market choice—ordinary people won’t sacrifice self-interest for revolutionary ideals.
Liu Feng:
Looking back, what attracted me most to Ethereum was the wave of native DeFi experiments from 2019 to 2021–2022. That was the golden age of Crypto-native triumph.
Under today’s new narrative—this apparent compromise with reality—Ethereum no longer seems fertile ground for such explosive, organic growth.
Sun Ming:
The community hasn’t found the next direction for DeFi—what it should build. I think the community still hasn’t figured it out. Institutional products and services are visible, predictable—many see them as more certain.
Liu Feng:
How long will this trend—aligning everything with institutions, boldly embracing Wall Street and politicians—last?
Sun Ming:
Maybe until Trump’s term ends.
Jack:
I find this poignant. I saw Solana—once seen as an “Ethereum killer”—soon after Trump took office, changed its banner to the U.S. flag, branding itself as an American chain.
After Trump leaves office, won’t this chain face political backlash?
Sun Ming:
It’s not just them—almost everyone did this. Anyone who boards the political ship will eventually be held accountable. That’s inevitable—even for the Trump family.
But in the short term, many prefer this route for immediate gains. It’s a widespread, rational choice—I can’t blame them.
Ethereum’s case is special: is it Ethereum’s choice or EF’s? Strictly speaking, no one represents Ethereum. Within the community, some move one way, others another—there’s no single representative. Institutionalization today isn’t really tied to EF—EF itself doesn’t focus on this, remaining dedicated to its roadmap.
Liu Feng:
Currently, I find the landscape not beautifully diverse, but rather tilted overwhelmingly in one direction. Everyone’s cheering the creation of Ethereum’s DAT company. People celebrate companies like Etherealize finally promoting Ethereum to institutions. Meanwhile, everyone hopes Ethereum shifts fully toward commercialization.
Lanling, is there anything else you’d like to add—especially regarding the numerous criticisms, misunderstandings, or attacks on Ethereum this week?
Sun Ming:
I think criticism is necessary, even if mistaken. Though much of last year’s and this year’s criticism stemmed from price drops, the underlying issues are real—they won’t vanish with rising prices. Price increases don’t mean you’re doing well—they’re unrelated.
Liu Feng:
Do you think Ethereum’s fundamentals have changed?
Sun Ming:
Not significantly. Price drops stem from mainstream capital rotating positions—this year is a concentrated rotation phase. So it has nothing to do with the Ethereum Foundation (EF).
Liu Feng:
First, it’s unrelated to EF; second, fundamentals haven’t changed much, right?
Sun Ming:
Right. EF can’t possibly influence price. Wall Street already controls price discourse—EF has zero impact. Though EF has many areas to improve, from another angle, they’re continuously experimenting with decentralized governance, encountering many detours. Ethereum’s core protocol keeps evolving, with major upgrades yearly—sharply contrasting Bitcoin’s stability. Bitcoin’s protocol rarely changes, making governance easier. Ethereum must regularly make major decisions—that’s inherently difficult.
Jack:
You mentioned Wall Street has taken over Ethereum. Does that mean the Ethereum Foundation’s mission is over?
Sun Ming:
Not at all.EF’s mission is unrelated to Wall Street taking over. They still have their own technical roadmap to execute. Price isn’t very important to them, despite external pressures from price movements.
EF controls very little—nodes aren’t theirs, nor is the token supply. Their power within the ecosystem is tiny—no need to overemphasize EF.
Jack:
Could the Ethereum Foundation become increasingly irrelevant to the Ethereum ecosystem in the future?
Sun Ming:
Possibly in the long run, but for now, it remains crucial—roadmap setting still rests with them. If someday Ethereum evolves into a “complete” state needing no further major changes, EF might lose relevance. But technologically, they remain decisive—they set the technical direction.
Jack:
Don’t you worry that large institutions might seize technical话语权? I feel we’re moving in that direction.
Sun Ming:
If the technical roadmap is seized, it’ll likely result in a fork—a new Ethereum chain. Large Wall Street firms lack internal consensus—each has its own technical vision.
Liu Feng:
I think from a commercial standpoint, if interests align, fighting for话语权 isn’t that meaningful. There may be disputes, but overall, shared benefits dominate.
Sun Ming:
Seizing话语权 is meaningless—you can build your own roadmap however you like, regardless of others’ opinions.
Jack:
I ask because Ethereum, as an asset, is now recognized by Wall Street. They’ll want new stories for their accumulated holdings to boost prices. Will this affect fundamentals?
Sun Ming:
It’s not closely tied to fundamentals. Just like hoarding Bitcoin doesn’t affect Bitcoin Core’s control.
Liu Feng:
The conflict might lie in economic model design and how roadmap changes affect it. This could happen, but Ethereum’s governance relies less on token voting—developer choices and social consensus matter more.
Sun Ming:
This model isn’t necessarily the best, but it’s currently effective. Other projects can choose different governance models—even extreme on-chain voting. But those may not work well.
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
深潮TechFlow
