Community Trust ScoreVerified
The Ethereum Foundation is in trouble. Eight key members have walked out since January 2026, and the fallout has turned into something far bigger than a staffing problem — it’s a full-blown identity crisis for the organization that sits at the center of a network securing trillions in on-chain assets.
The cracks really started showing in March 2026, when the Foundation published what it calls its “Mandate.” The document repositioned the Foundation as a steward of Ethereum rather than a governing authority over it. That framing didn’t land well with everyone. It ripped open a long-simmering argument: should the Foundation stay in its lane as a public-goods research shop, or should it get more aggressive about execution and actually competing in a fast-moving blockchain market? The departures made the debate impossible to ignore anymore.
Zak Cole, an Ethereum contributor, didn’t hold back.
Cole, Feist, and the Loudest Critics
Cole went on a podcast and basically said the Foundation was out of touch. His argument: Ethereum is mature now, the financial stakes are enormous, and the Foundation’s priorities don’t match the moment. It’s a sharp critique, and it’s the kind of thing that circulates fast in the Ethereum developer community.
Former researcher Dankrad Feist went further. He proposed building a separate organization — funded with $1 billion in ETH — specifically designed to fill the execution gap he sees in the current structure. The idea is pretty much a direct challenge to the Foundation’s existing model. Feist’s proposal frames the Foundation not as broken, but as structurally limited for what Ethereum needs right now. Whether that $1 billion organization ever gets off the ground is unclear. No timeline, no formal announcement. Just a proposal that’s stirring a lot of conversation.
And it’s not just external noise. Internal leadership at the Foundation is also pushing on technical priorities. There are active efforts to raise the gas limit to 200 million, advance the proposer-builder split work, and push zkEVMs toward achieving 128-bit provable security. Those are real, concrete goals. But the question hanging over all of it is whether the governance structure can actually deliver on them while the organization is losing people and absorbing public criticism at the same time.
Buterin Pushes Back
Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum’s co-founder, weighed in with a detailed post. He pushed back on the framing that the Foundation is failing. Per Buterin, the Foundation is one node among many in the ecosystem — not the center of the universe, not the decision-maker for everything. He said its focus on censorship resistance, security, and core values isn’t a weakness. It’s a deliberate strategic choice that prioritizes longevity over breadth.
That’s a coherent argument. But it doesn’t fully address what the critics are actually saying, which is less about values and more about speed and competitive positioning.
Chris Buolos of Dromos Labs offered a more measured take. He acknowledged the criticism but defended the Foundation’s neutrality, saying it still plays a real role in aligning competing teams on best practices. That’s probably true. And it’s also probably not enough for everyone who thinks Ethereum is losing ground.
The governance issue isn’t directly crashing ETH’s price. But it’s not irrelevant to markets either. Protocol credibility and institutional confidence are real factors for a network that functions as financial infrastructure. Developers watch this stuff. Institutional allocators watch this stuff. When the organization closest to Ethereum’s core starts losing prominent names and fielding proposals to build a rival structure around it, people notice.
Developer Retention and Rival Chains
Rival blockchains have been circling Ethereum’s developer base for years. That competition is real and it’s not slowing down. Ethereum’s advantage has always been its network effects, its tooling, and the depth of its developer ecosystem. But those things aren’t permanent. They require maintenance, coordination, and a clear enough direction that builders feel confident betting on the platform.
That’s what makes the governance uncertainty genuinely consequential. It’s not just an internal org chart problem. Upgrade coordination gets harder when leadership is in flux. Retaining top researchers and engineers gets harder when there’s public debate about whether the Foundation even has the right model. And attracting new developers gets harder when the narrative is instability rather than momentum.
Buolos said the Foundation’s neutrality is a feature. Cole basically said it’s a bug. Both of them are probably right, depending on what you think Ethereum needs most right now.
The Foundation’s internal discussions are ongoing. The gas limit push, the zkEVM security targets, the proposer-builder split work — all of that continues. Eight departures since January, a $1 billion rival org proposal on the table, and Buterin defending the Foundation’s model in a public post.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many people have left the Ethereum Foundation since January 2026?
Eight key members have resigned from the Ethereum Foundation since January 2026, triggering a public debate about the organization’s direction and governance model.
What did Dankrad Feist propose as an alternative to the current Foundation structure?
Former researcher Dankrad Feist proposed creating a separate $1 billion ETH-aligned organization focused on execution and value capture, directly challenging the Foundation’s existing model.
