Interview with the Chair of the Ethereum Community Foundation: Downsizing, Resignations, and Liquidations—What Is Ethereum Going Through?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Interview with the Chair of the Ethereum Community Foundation: Downsizing, Resignations, and Liquidations—What Is Ethereum Going Through?
In every previous cycle, there were so-called “ETH killers,” but many were merely vaporware; the current issue is that someone has finally built a car that looks cooler and runs faster.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsCompiled & Translated by TechFlow
Guests: Zak Cole (Chair of the Ethereum Community Foundation), Greg Markou (Co-Founder & CEO of Sprinter, Co-Founder of ChainSafe)
Host: Laura Shin
Original Title: The EF Is Shrinking. What Does It Mean for Ethereum and ETH?
Podcast Source: Unchained
Air Date: May 26, 2026
Editor’s Note
The core tension facing Ethereum today is not merely the Ethereum Foundation’s (EF) “downsizing” or senior staff departures—but rather a misalignment of responsibilities among three pillars: ETH as an asset, Ethereum as public infrastructure, and the EF as a coordination hub.
Zak Cole (Chair of the Ethereum Community Foundation) and Greg Markou (Co-Founder & CEO of Sprinter, Co-Founder of ChainSafe) have both spent years building inside the Ethereum ecosystem—one representing the more aggressive “ETH-as-asset-value” camp, the other grounded in engineering and infrastructure perspectives. Their divergence precisely exposes the underlying tension in this conversation: Should Ethereum continue as a values-driven cypherpunk network—or must it mature like a real company, openly acknowledging price, governance, ecosystem collaboration, and competition?
The greatest value of this episode lies in its ability to thread together Vitalik’s statement that “the EF will be a smaller ship,” the CROPS values (Censorship Resistance, Open Source/Openness, Privacy, Security), high-profile staff departures, David Hoffman’s full ETH liquidation, Dankrad Feist’s proposal to launch a new $1 billion organization, and revenue diversion to Solana, Tron, and Hyperliquid—all within a single coherent narrative.
Key Quotes
Ethereum Is No Longer an Early-Stage Startup
- “Ethereum is no longer a startup—it’s a mature, massive ecosystem backed by billions, even trillions, of dollars. Many people’s careers and livelihoods depend on it.”
- “The EF says it’s not central—but if a contentious fork occurs, Circle and Tether will almost certainly follow the chain the EF chooses. In practice, that makes the EF the de facto center.”
- “Admitting responsibility isn’t shameful. In fact, I want the EF to truly take responsibility—to diversify its board, and bring in people who understand product, business, markets, and communications.”
- “An organization can be professional, clear, and scalable—while still upholding censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security.”
Price Is Not Noise—It’s Part of Security
- “After transitioning to PoS, ETH’s value is part of network security—the lower ETH’s price, the lower the network’s security.”
- “You can’t build an economic system first and then say, ‘Maybe economics matters’ ten years later. ETH’s monetary premium is itself the mechanism that attracts users, secures the network, and generates value.”
- “If there’s a scoreboard, you’re already on a field where points matter. A team that doesn’t care about winning should go back to the playground.”
- “The EF isn’t incapable of upholding CROPS values—the problem is that it hasn’t treated ETH—and ETH’s price—as tools to advance those principles.”
The Real Issue Isn’t Departures—It’s Who’s Making Decisions
- “Staff turnover in mature organizations is normal—unless those people begin collectively migrating to other ecosystems. So far, most remain active within the Ethereum ecosystem.”
- “Bastian may be an excellent person—but for someone occupying a central position at the EF, the outside world barely knows who he is, or why he’s empowered to make major decisions.”
- “If key EF staff are indeed managing large-scale projects—but even deeply engaged ecosystem participants don’t know what they’re doing—that’s a failure of clarity and communication by the EF.”
Ethereum Isn’t Facing Another Round of ‘ETH Killer’ Noise
- “Every cycle has had so-called ‘ETH killers’—but many were vaporware. Now, someone has finally built a car that looks cooler and drives faster.”
- “The EF can’t possibly be unaware that Solana, Tron, Hyperliquid, and others are capturing revenue and users—but many may simply not care.”
- “CROPS may win long-term—but it won’t necessarily win short-term. And if it loses short-term, it may lose the chance to win long-term.”
Small Foundations Can Exist—But Boards Must Stop Operating Like Family Businesses
- “The EF can keep shrinking and stay focused on research—but it must delegate execution to external organizations better equipped for the task.”
- “Boards shouldn’t become internal promotion and crony networks. They need external members from DeFi, open source, institutional finance, product, and communications.”
- “Ethereum needs to increase its surface area for luck. Winning requires many factors—and luck. Expanding reach is itself a way to improve odds.”
Ethereum Community’s Recent Turmoil
Laura Shin: Over the past week, the Ethereum community has been shaken by multiple departures from the Foundation—especially the exits of several senior members, sparking concern. Meanwhile, Bankless co-host David Hoffman announced he’d sold his last ETH. ETH currently trades around $2,100, down sharply from nearly $5,000 last summer and fall.
On Sunday, Vitalik reiterated that “the EF will be a smaller ship,” again emphasizing Ethereum’s CROPS values—censorship resistance, open source/openness, privacy, and security—as guiding principles.
The community has long worried Ethereum is losing ground to other chains. Appointing Tomasz Stańczak as co-executive director of the EF in 2025 briefly eased these concerns—but he stepped down after just 11 months. Now the community feels Vitalik and the EF have reverted to old patterns—patterns that previously caused deep anxiety. Before diving into each event, I’d like your overall take on this turbulence. Zak, you first.
Zak Cole: I’ve been beating this drum for a long time—criticizing the EF’s performance and its attitude toward the broader ecosystem. I think they took a few steps in the right direction—but now seem to be stepping backward. Overall, though, sentiment toward the EF today tracks closely with ETH’s price. If ETH were still at $5,000, I doubt we’d see so many complaints about what the EF is or isn’t doing.
So I don’t want to be overly harsh on the EF. Much of this sentiment stems from price performance—which is not fully within the EF’s control. That said, I’m not suggesting the EF ignore price—or that price shouldn’t be viewed as part of network security. I just think much of this reflects bear-market psychology.
Laura Shin: Greg, how do you see it?
Greg Markou: I agree the bear market and current price certainly affect overall sentiment. But I’ll also say the EF did grow significantly since Tomasz joined. At the time, Danny Ryan was seen as a possible leader—and both the EF and the community experienced considerable turbulence. Tomasz at least tried to reorient the EF’s focus.
Now that he’s left—and others have followed—the situation is complex. Many departing staff had been at the EF for four or five years; some may simply need rest, a change of direction, or new pursuits. Overall, the EF has taken several steps toward maturity—cutting longstanding community pain points and improving transparency. As for recent CROPS-related news—I think there’s merit to it.
Still, things did shift after Tomasz’s departure. Overall, I still believe things are moving positively. Vitalik’s post yesterday even slightly shifted my view.
Laura Shin: You say things are moving positively—what specifically do you mean?
Greg Markou: I mean the EF is beginning to recognize it must mature—to identify its priorities—and to acknowledge that in certain areas, it must rely on other teams to hold the line.
Zak Cole: My concern is we’ve heard this before. They gave Tomasz a shot—and it went poorly. Now it looks like they’re retreating back into familiar territory: endless talk about the “infinite garden,” funding longevity research, and pursuing obscure projects nobody cares about except Vitalik and his inner circle. Frankly, the EF is completely out of touch.
Of course, I’ll credit them for at least admitting other organizations must step up. But the question remains: Are they truly willing to cede authority to more capable, more grounded organizations? Ethereum is no longer a startup—it’s a mature, resilient ecosystem. You can’t operate with the same whimsy as six or ten years ago. Billions—even trillions—of dollars ride on this. Many people’s livelihoods depend on it. My entire career is built on Ethereum—if it fails, what happens to me?
Laura Shin: You both mentioned something earlier: Several recently departed EF members are senior figures widely known in the community. To me, that’s not optimistic—it’s worrying. Yet you don’t sound alarmed. How do you interpret this? Several of them are genuine Ethereum evangelists.
Zak Cole: I’m not particularly alarmed. Mature organizations naturally experience staff turnover—and many of these people had been there a long time.
Laura Shin: Even though all these departures happened shortly after Tomasz left—within three months?
Zak Cole: I’m not saying it’s optimistic. I’m saying it could signal ecosystem maturity—or it could signal the EF regressing from Tomasz’s approach. I don’t know. Either way, the ecosystem itself is growing. If people’s visions diverge from the EF’s, perhaps it’s better they leave and pursue their own paths. I believe they’ll continue working in the Ethereum ecosystem—at least I hope so. It’s too early to judge long-term outcomes—I haven’t spoken with them, nor do I know their thinking.
Laura Shin: I didn’t name names earlier—but this includes Tim Beiko, Barnabé Monnot, Josh Stark, Trent Van Epps, Carl Beekhuizen, Julian Mauduit, and others well-known to the community.
Zak Cole: Yes, they’re prominent. I don’t disrespect their past contributions—I simply ask: What have they done lately? What concrete contributions have they made to the EF and the broader ecosystem recently?
Laura Shin: Perhaps not every contribution is publicly attributed. Are you suggesting they’re unimportant?
Zak Cole: I’m not saying they’re unimportant. I’m saying they’ve effectively acquired “lifetime appointments” and drifted into passion projects. If they *are* leading major initiatives, that would reflect another EF failure—its inability to communicate externally what these people are actually leading.
For my part, I don’t know what the EF is doing. I don’t know what individual staff members are doing—or what the board is doing. I only know what Vitalik says—and that’s about it. As someone deeply embedded in the ecosystem, if *I* can’t articulate what they’re doing—beyond Trent’s work on the Protocol Guild—I consider that a failure of transparency and explanation by the EF.
Laura Shin: Greg, your take?
Greg Markou: This isn’t optimism—but I’m not yet alarmed. I’d only worry if we saw mass migration to other ecosystems.
My instinct is this isn’t like Max Resnick’s highly publicized departure from Ethereum to Solana. From what I’ve heard, most will continue building on Ethereum—just outside the EF. This resembles healthy turnover. Only when an organization enters a negative feedback loop—where everyone gets poached by competing ecosystems—should we truly worry.
If they start building on Solana, then yes—we should worry. Peter Szilagyi’s departure last year is another example. His output gradually declined over six to twelve months—maybe one PR per month—until he naturally exited. I may underestimate his contributions, but that felt like organic turnover. This group hasn’t shown such dramatic exits yet.
Laura Shin: What about Tomasz’s departure? He joined just 11 months ago—specifically in response to community demands for reform and dissatisfaction. He was popular—his timeline was filled with praise. He was open, speaking with as many builders as possible—so his swift exit shocked the community. It felt like the EF was reverting to ignoring community input. Why do you think it happened?
Zak Cole: I believe the EF yielded to community pressure and installed Tomasz—but never truly intended to relinquish control. He remained only a co-executive director, sharing authority with Hsiao-Wei Wang—leaving him insufficient freedom to drive real organizational change. When he attempted those changes, I believe he was sidelined—because he clashed with the EF’s “infinite garden” culture.
After he left, they appointed Bastian Aue—a mysterious figure virtually unknown to the public. Then the EF released a so-called “mandate” document—designed in a DeviantArt-esque aesthetic. It could’ve been a clean blog post explaining CROPS principles—but instead, they chose a comic-book manifesto. This makes me deeply pessimistic. I don’t want an organization responsible for my children’s financial future releasing material like this.
Laura Shin: We should put it on screen for viewers. We laughed about it earlier—it does have a distinctive aesthetic, and the font choices are odd.
Zak Cole: Let me be blunt: Tomasz wouldn’t release something like this. Greg, I know you want to stay non-pessimistic—but it’s hard to look at this document and claim it’s fit for underpinning financial futures. Institutions will hesitate to entrust funds here. And phrases like “if we fail, may the EF die by the sword”? Strange design is one thing—but the copy itself is equally detached from reality.
Laura Shin: You mean the small comic at the bottom of page 11? Yes, it’s wild.
Let’s jump to Vitalik’s Sunday post—since one point caught my attention. He stated Bastian is leading the EF’s transformation. Do you think this mandate came from Bastian—or from Vitalik? Or does it even matter?
Zak Cole: The EF has a board—and Vitalik holds majority influence on it. Regardless of his phrasing, if you examine the org chart, Vitalik sits at the top—with legal authority to act as he wishes. He can claim decentralization or deference to others—but practice tells a different story. The EF is, in essence, Vitalik’s megaphone. Whether they admit it or not, Vitalik controls the EF—and nothing happens without his approval.
Laura Shin: Greg, do you agree?
Greg Markou: Broadly, yes. Viewed this way, it’s not fundamentally different from the “shadow government” debates within the EF a decade ago—only now it’s more transparent, more visible. This document couldn’t exist without Vitalik’s and Bastian’s consent. What’s concerning—per Zak’s point—is how bizarre it looks. Creativity is fine—but if you’re competing for price, for external trust—especially at the mandate level—borrowing a bit of McKinsey-style clarity wouldn’t hurt. This isn’t summer camp—or art school.
Laura Shin: You two are hilarious. Back to staff departures—do you think these recent exits relate to Tomasz no longer serving as co-executive director?
Zak Cole: Tomasz’s departure revealed something stark: Some EF insiders never intended to honor commitments to the community. That was just empty rhetoric. If they truly meant it, we’d see action—not just words.
If Vitalik doesn’t want to relinquish EF control—or ecosystem control—and prefers concentrating power at the EF, that’s fine—just say so. Then open the board. Why not appoint members from DeFi, diverse protocols, and institutional backgrounds? They should be public figures, with verifiable track records, accountable to the community—not mysterious figures we must piece together from internet fragments.
If a zachcole.com existed with strange content, I’d proactively clarify: “That’s not me—that’s another, more unhinged Zach Cole.” But now we hear nothing—no idea who these people are—or who’s making decisions critical to the ecosystem’s survival and health.
Laura Shin: Greg, anything to add?
Greg Markou: I recall Tomasz’s term was two years, renewed annually. Seeing him leave signaled clearly that this wasn’t sustainable. You could argue AI hype peaked then—he may have wanted to pivot. But driving change in a large organization requires patience—two years is minimal. Large organizations move slowly.
Returning to the “shadow government” issue: Someone inside the EF surely knows Bastian—and he may be excellent. But when he occupies Ethereum’s center stage—making major budget cuts, killing projects, and pushing teams outward—yet offers zero public background? Why isn’t he on Unchained? Why are Zak and I here instead? Why can’t you interview Bastian directly?
Laura Shin: I tried figuring out who he is, too. I found a photo of Bastian Aue online, asked the EF if it was him—and they said no. I got physical descriptions from people who know him, confirming the photo wasn’t him.
This is exactly the point I raised in my post—and EF comms got angry. Bastian and Tomasz contrast sharply. Tomasz engaged publicly—you could meet him, he had presence on X, interacted online and offline. He inspired confidence because people could see his work. Bastian has almost no history—no public footprint—except a strange website we can’t confirm belongs to him. After being named interim co-executive director, he barely tweeted—and the EF offered no clarity on how the next executive director would be selected, what the process is, or what comes next—only that he’s “interim.”
Greg Markou: This is a recurring EF pattern. For years, the EF barely spoke to anyone. I know L2 teams were frustrated—they’d never had meaningful dialogue with EF leadership on marketing or other issues. Researchers might chat informally—but the organization itself didn’t communicate. Tomasz tried changing that. Only recently have people like Charles and Yvonne begun focusing on DeFi and engaging externally. But it took ten years—and now DeFi TVL is low. It’s late.
Now the same repetition emerges. New arrivals may be great—but nobody’s heard of them, seen them, or understood them—yet they’re slashing budgets and spinning out teams. That’s genuinely concerning.
Laura Shin: Let’s return to the mandate document. Rumor has it EF staff were required to sign loyalty pledges to CROPS principles—or face termination. Was this Bastian’s or Vitalik’s idea? What do you think of this approach?
Greg Markou: This feels like scapegoating. As someone who runs companies, it genuinely angers me. For years, the EF failed to effectively remove unsuitable staff or hold teams accountable. It has excellent project managers and engineers—but often let teams spend $20 million with zero engineering-level accountability.
I debated this with Tomasz: There should be engineering managers held to rigorous standards—not necessarily public, but budgets can’t run unchecked. So this “loyalty pledge” seems like a pretext to purge people who don’t fit the cultural template—and conveniently execute layoffs.
Zak Cole: It feels like they want everything—but refuse to take the extra step to ensure those principles are enforced.
Laura Shin: So you mean requiring signed pledges is an indirect way—not direct conversations about mission alignment?
Zak Cole: Exactly. Then they use it as justification to clean house—as Greg noted.
David Hoffman’s ETH Sale—Impact and Implications
Laura Shin: Next, let’s discuss another event from last week. While the community was digesting these departures, Bankless’s David Hoffman announced he’d sold his final ETH. It shocked many—Bankless launched as a staunchly Ethereum-aligned podcast. His co-host Ryan Sean Adams still believes in Ethereum—but David will appear less frequently going forward. What was your reaction?
Zak Cole: I don’t consider this news. To me, David’s been operating independently for years. Bankless is fundamentally entrepreneurial and commercial—they act in their bottom line’s interest, which doesn’t always align with Ethereum’s. They run a startup incubator and venture fund—carrying fiduciary duties of their own.
David’s done pessimistic things for years—this isn’t new. Selling ETH now may be attention-seeking—he’s cultivated an image as Ethereum’s anti-hero. I won’t sell ETH because David did—that’d be foolish. People trade constantly—I just won’t tweet about it.
Laura Shin: But his entire identity was once tied to Ethereum.
Zak Cole: I haven’t considered David an Ethereum believer for three or four years. I see him as a market operator seeking profit—that’s fine. If that’s who he wants to be, fair enough. At least he didn’t secretly dump positions while publicly pumping ETH.
Laura Shin: Greg, your take?
Greg Markou: I’m not especially concerned. But when someone wields such influence—and built their brand on ETH—it does reveal something about character. It also drives clicks—I mostly view it that way.
Zak Cole: One more point: The EF and Vitalik constantly say they don’t want to be kingmakers—but they directly created David Hoffman’s influence. They gave him the spotlight and microphone. Five or six years ago, Vitalik endorsed him—helping Bankless become the de facto Ethereum podcast. Before that, he was just hosting a small podcast. Giving someone a microphone and attention *is* kingmaking—and contradicts their current stance.
Laura Shin: The day after David’s announcement, Dankrad Feist posted a proposal. He formerly led research at the EF before leaving for Tempo last fall. His tweet outlined four steps to help Ethereum “win again”: First, establish a credible, well-funded organization—starting with at least $1 billion; second, recruit a capable, battle-ready leader; third, ensure accountability via a board and charter explicitly aligned with ETH price appreciation; fourth, permanently fund it using substantial staking revenue.
I find it interesting that the EF could fully embrace CROPS principles *and* implement Dankrad’s suggestions. I don’t see them as mutually exclusive. Yet the EF operates as if it wants CROPS—but refuses to fight for them, preferring an ivory tower where “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 appealing—but the deeper problem is the EF’s refusal to acknowledge price as a core ecosystem driver—or as foundational to network security. Post-PoS, ETH’s value *is* network value—equivalent to the entire network’s security foundation.
So the focus shouldn’t be “give someone $1 billion”—but returning to fundamentals: What do we actually need to do? I believe we must treat ETH as a network asset—channeling value toward ETH. Past poor strategic decisions eroded value—like pushing too much to L2, or making protocol decisions without considering network and protocol economics. This severely harms ETH and ETH holders—who should be treated as fiduciaries.
Greg Markou: Historically, beyond a few core teams, many EF members were strong academic researchers—but applied research wasn’t emphasized. For non-technical audiences, applied research means product intuition—you know the ideal state, understand necessary tradeoffs, and design a realistic path to get there.
Historically—and still today—applied and engineering work has largely been outsourced to external teams. That’s why consensus clients exist—and why the EF funds external parties. Many issues also stem from execution and leadership. Internally, the EF isn’t structured to hold people accountable or drive product development. Even internal teams operate autonomously. Well-run teams like Geth receive funding, listen to research teams’ ideas—and sometimes reject proposals at the core developer level.
What’s worth watching next: With many departures and forced spin-outs, teams retain fixed funding—but future renewals are uncertain. My understanding is this reflects the EF’s acknowledgment that it’s ill-suited for certain tasks—like a startup focusing on what it does best, outsourcing the rest.
Reactions to Vitalik’s Latest Post
Laura Shin: Now let’s discuss Vitalik’s Sunday post. First, the opening: He emphasizes this is his personal view—the Foundation has other staff and board members. But everyone knows his words likely set direction. He notes Bastian is executing the EF’s transformation. Then he cites Google’s founding motto “Don’t be evil”—and observes how large corporations now tilt toward financial greed, accelerating superintelligence, infiltration by societal psychopaths, and capitulation—or even active participation—in governmental ideological control, surveillance, and warfare.
He says this shaped his vision for the EF: It shouldn’t be Ethereum’s center—but one node among many, with clear purpose. Its financial resources are limited—holding only ~0.16% of all ETH—so it will prioritize longevity over breadth. Given ETH has lost over half its value since last fall, budget constraints are real. Finally, he states Ethereum must be “compelling”—defined as provably bug-free, usable chain consensus, and maximal minimization of intermediaries. Your thoughts?
Greg Markou: You don’t lose senior leadership due to budget tightening. For instance, Solidity—a frequent complaint target—might be spun out for budget reasons. I wouldn’t attribute Tim’s departure to budget cuts—I see it as systemic.
Zak Cole: Many of these people have been with Ethereum for a decade—they were there at the very beginning. We shared the same belief—and that motivated us to build. I went unpaid for long stretches—it was hard—but I built ETH because I believed in it. That’s what made early Ethereum special.
Placing CROPS at the center isn’t objectionable—it’s about *how* the organization operates. You can’t run today’s Ethereum with yesterday’s playbook. The EF has become an enormously influential giant—and the larger it grows, the more fearful it becomes of steering it where it *should* go—because there are now too many moving parts, and too much riding on it.
Laura Shin: The post’s second half raised eyebrows. Vitalik states, from a financial perspective, Ethereum’s highest-value product is the ETH asset. A blockchain founder declaring ETH the most valuable product is newsworthy—because he usually avoids price talk. He adds that supporting ETH falls partly outside the EF’s scope—requiring “other heroes” to help—including some holding more ETH than the EF itself. I read this as implicit endorsement of Dankrad’s idea. What do you think of his framing of ETH as an asset?
Zak Cole: Finally, it’s been said. ETH has value—and unique utility for the network. Isn’t that obvious? It should’ve been stated five years ago. ETH’s importance lies in being PoS’s foundation. Low ETH value = low security. You can’t build an economic engine and declare economics “maybe important” a decade later.
I won’t attack him for voicing what everyone thinks—but it’s not news. We must treat ETH as the network’s monetary premium. It creates value, attracts users, and secures the network. Network security depends entirely on ETH having value—that’s blockchain and crypto’s innovation. So him saying this *now* feels odd.
Greg Markou: It’s like his *Wolf of Wall Street* moment—just delayed. But it fits ongoing shifts. Hiring a DeFi lead is positive—though extremely late. DeFi Summer ended six years ago. I’ve married, had kids, raised them, and gone gray. Better late than never—but perhaps they’re turning a page, given serious competition has finally arrived.
ETH’s Cryptoeconomics and Competitive Landscape
Laura Shin: This leads to my next topic. I tweeted that ETH’s cryptoeconomics are “broken.” Many believe Ethereum is valuable—and many are willing to fight for Vitalik’s vision, CROPS principles, and related ideals. I think many genuinely embrace these principles.
But the problem is Vitalik and the EF aren’t wielding ETH effectively. ETH could be a powerful tool to advance CROPS—using ecosystem collaboration and cryptoeconomics to spark initial interest in ETH, then delivering those principles as a “Trojan horse.” Most people don’t grasp how vital these principles are. Just declaring adherence—and praying people care—won’t work. Do you agree ETH’s cryptoeconomics are broken? Does the EF play a key role in shaping them?
Zak Cole: 100%. Absolutely.
Greg Markou: Try changing the emissions curve—and the entire R&D team will descend screaming “no.”
Laura Shin: You mean the emissions curve?
Greg Markou: Yes. Touch economics—and they’ll all intervene. Hasu’s podcast discussed curve changes years ago—three or four years back—but nothing’s changed. Now an EIP proposes cutting issuance roughly in half—which would be great—but it’ll be contentious.
Zak Cole: The risk-free return on that effort isn’t worth it.
Laura Shin: David Hoffman echoed this. I tweeted that Ethereum doesn’t care about scoring on the scoreboard—and he replied that’s essentially why he left.
Zak Cole: It *should* care. If there’s a scoreboard, you’re on a field where points matter. If your team doesn’t care about winning—go back to the playground.
Laura Shin: Which brings us to the competitive era. Frank Chaparro tweeted this morning that Ethereum’s dominance is slipping: ETH is down ~30% YTD, the ETH/BTC ratio hit its lowest since mid-2025, and blockchain revenue continues flowing to Solana, Tron, and Hyperliquid. The competitive landscape is shifting rapidly. His chart shows Ethereum (blue) once dominated—but revenue distribution has grown more even.
Laura Shin: I sense the EF—or Vitalik—either doesn’t realize this scale of competition is happening—or doesn’t care. Do you think they recognize competition has just begun?
Zak Cole: I think they’re utterly unaware. Every cycle had “ETH killers”—EOS and others—many pure vaporware. But eventually, someone *will* build a car that looks cooler—and actually drives faster.
Ethereum was always the coolest—boasting the best tech, researchers, and mindshare—breeding complacency and laziness. I don’t think they’re listening to the ground—they’re truly out of touch.
But it’s not too late. I also don’t fully buy slogans like “make ETH win again.” I still believe ETH performs exceptionally well—better than any other network. Market-wide weakness also relates to AI diverting attention. Flashier things attract young talent now. Crypto was hot—but now it’s just a standard stack component; AI is the new frontier drawing youth and talent.
Laura Shin: Greg, your view on the EF’s attitude—or awareness—of competition?
Greg Markou: I don’t think they’re completely ignorant. But regarding *what’s actually happening*, I believe many aren’t closely tracking other ecosystems. ChainSafe builds nodes and infrastructure across major blockchains—we often bring back good ideas from other chains, only to hear: “I don’t know that chain.” That’s a common pattern.
They may know the data—but whether they care *why* another ecosystem does something—or why users choose it—is another matter. Claiming total ignorance would be gross negligence—I believe they know—but it’s likely arrogance: “We don’t need competition.” ETH killers arrive every cycle—and fade away.
What Should the Ethereum Foundation Do?
Laura Shin: What should happen next—in your ideal scenario? What should the EF do? Is an external organization needed? Zak, feel free to speak about the ECF too.
Zak Cole: The ECF exists to pressure the EF. Over the past year, we’ve delivered significant outputs on minimal budget and a tiny team—focused on Ethereum, providing grants, building public goods infrastructure, and consumer-facing products.
Longer-term, I envision Vitalik and the EF ending the nonsense. You can claim no control—you can call it decentralized—but courts and reality won’t read your statements—they’ll look at outcomes and execution.
If a contentious fork occurs, which chain becomes canonical? It’ll be the one the EF endorses—because Circle and Tether will redeem assets there. They won’t assume liability for choosing—so they’ll follow the EF, which ultimately follows Vitalik. That’s reality. Publishing strange comics or claiming non-responsibility changes nothing. The EF *is* responsible.
Admitting responsibility is fine—I want them to be responsible. You built this child—now send it to school. Mature. Diversify the board. Bring in people from across industry—more knowledgeable about product, business, and entrepreneurship—not just writing whitepapers for twenty years and indulging in academic self-amusement.
Tomasz’s arrival excited everyone—it felt like the right step—but they pushed him out and returned to the infinite garden. We at ECF built a transparency dashboard tracking every dollar spent—even paperclip purchases appear in our reports.
We must run Ethereum like a company. Whether you think companies are evil or not, organizations must function. A functional organization doesn’t conflict with CROPS principles. Greg and I ran companies for over a decade surviving—and dying—by these principles. They never hindered professionalism, clarity, or scalability.
We made institutions comfortable—without selling ourselves entirely to banks. We entered this space not to become institutional investors or accredited investors—but because CROPS principles drove us. But if we can’t apply those principles to real-world business, they hold no practical value. So make them real.
Whether the EF accepts responsibility—acknowledging the need for price-aligned ecosystem collaboration, market-focused ecosystem collaboration, and narrative education—or another organization takes charge—the EF must truly cede control and hand the microphone to others. Who does it doesn’t matter—as long as they understand what a scalable roadmap requires.
Laura Shin: I agree—the EF hasn’t used ETH and ETH’s price as tools in its toolkit—though it could. Zak, you’re about to leave—but one final question: Vitalik said the EF will appoint new board members. Any advice on process, candidate profiles, or specific names?
Zak Cole: I don’t think this should operate like a DAO—or be decided by voting from all ETH holders. I’m not advocating extremes—treat it like a real company. Bring in representatives from diverse Ethereum domains—people who contribute knowledge and judgment, understanding what’s truly essential. Include people fluent in mainstream media and PR.
If the EF refuses, at least stop manufacturing PR crises that make everyone look bad. Either do it—or shut up. You can lead, follow, or get out of the way. Right now, they seem to be doing none of the three—and it’s deeply frustrating. I know I sound unhinged—but I’ve done this for over a decade, cycling through boom and bust, watching wave after wave of people depart.
Laura Shin: Zak, if you need to go, feel free. I’d still like Greg to answer the prior two questions.
Zak Cole: I’m stepping off—thanks for having me.
Laura Shin: Thanks, Zak—great talking with you. Greg, first question: Regarding Frank Chaparro’s chart—and whether you think the EF recognizes competition.
Greg Markou: As I said earlier—if nobody tracked this data, that would be a breach of fiduciary duty. Everyone’s on Twitter—they see what’s happening—so they know competition exists. But knowing competition exists—and understanding competitors’ technical edges or users’ decision-making—is different. The latter may only recently have become more common.
Historically, they’d claim they “talked to the community”—but that’s distinct from speaking with actual users. Often, the people they claimed to consult weren’t known to anyone—like Bastian. Things are changing—but I’d be surprised if they hadn’t seen the competition. I just think many insiders don’t care. They’ll say: “We have a moat—we have DeFi—we have liquidity.”
Laura Shin: My fear is that their indifference itself will cause Ethereum to lose. On The Defiant podcast, I said CROPS may win long-term—but will it win short-term? I’m not sure. Among non-crypto friends, crypto adoption is near zero. Competitors are meeting ordinary people where they are—speaking their language—while Ethereum stays entrenched in a cypherpunk posture.
98% of people aren’t in this space—and other chains and platforms are fighting for them. If Ethereum loses short-term, it may still win long-term—but losing short-term could forfeit long-term victory. That’s my concern.
Greg Markou: You must expand your surface area for luck. Winning requires many factors—and luck. You must maximize exposure. Bluntly, Zak’s critique of that document is correct—it’s terrible. Cleaning it into something clearer would satisfy me—and make it far more accessible. As-is, it’s hard to parse. This lack of awareness drives decisions that risk Ethereum losing.
I don’t think Ethereum will lose. Honestly, it retains enormous advantages. But ETH’s price is another matter entirely.
Laura Shin: I think if they fix tokenomics—and truly commit to fighting for Ethereum—not just issuing vague principle statements—Ethereum will likely win. Otherwise, I can only say: Let’s see if these principles magically attract people on their own.
Finally, the board. Since the EF *is* adding board members—how should that process unfold? What types of people—or specific names—do you hope for?
Greg Markou: Systemically, we need adults in the room. I can’t find Bastian’s info—but looking at other EF teams, many lack experience managing large enterprises or organizations. They don’t need traditional corporate backgrounds—but they need people who truly understand scaling businesses and know what must change.
The EF holds 13 basis points (~0.13%) of total ETH supply—small in percentage terms, but still a massive sum. They must first steward it responsibly. Second, I hope they continue spinning out more functions—relying on other organizations to execute. Stay lean—focus on research—that’s what we most need from the EF. The ecosystem hosts many independent, excellent teams—across varied budgets—capable of executing much.
Regarding the board—I don’t want it to remain an internal family business—promoting only internally, repeatedly. That lacks observability and accountability. We need external voices—people who’ve stuck their necks out for Ethereum and borne real risk over the past few years.
I’m unsure of exact names—and must caution against recreating kings. But I’d add two or three beachheads from diverse domains: e.g., one or two from DeFi—or at minimum, board observer seats. I’m unsure if Swiss foundation structures allow this—but the concept applies. People like Kane or Stani—though differing in views—have long supported the network.
We could also bring in adjacent-domain experts—e.g., someone who’s managed large open-source organizations. Someone at an S&P 500 company surely runs massive organizations and could advise on operational models. The key is choosing the right battlefield.
Laura Shin: In my book, I wrote about a moment when they tried recruiting Hyperledger’s Brian Behlendorf—but political factors around the EF’s executive director role made it unfeasible.
Greg Markou: That proves the point: It’s too much like a family business. Bring in people from the outside world who’ve led these efforts elsewhere. If they achieve those two things, I believe it would greatly help the community.
Laura Shin: Greg, thanks for joining—and thanks to Zak for being here earlier. I know this discussion will continue—it’s been ongoing for years. Now we’ll see what form EF’s evolution takes. Clearly, community reaction isn’t positive—I wonder if they’ll absorb feedback—or not. We’ll see.
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
