Who Really Runs Ethereum? Ex-Core Dev’s Resurfaced Letter Spurs Fresh Debate

The Ethereum Foundation is under scrutiny following the resurfacing of a May 2024 letter from a former core developer.

In the document, the developer lambasted the EF’s organizational culture, accusing it of fostering an elite-driven power structure centered on co-founder Vitalik Buterin while marginalizing key contributors through inadequate compensation.

What’s Really Happening Inside the Ethereum Foundation?

Péter Szilágyi, who led Geth (Go Ethereum) from 2015 until his departure in 2025 publicly shared a letter he wrote to the Ethereum Foundation on May 22, 2024. In it, he highlighted three main pain points, voicing deep dissatisfaction with the Foundation’s governance, compensation structure, and overall direction.

First, Szilágyi revealed that he struggled with a disconnect between how the EF portrays his role and how it treats him internally. While the Foundation publicly presented him as a key leader embodying Ethereum’s open values, he claimed his input was often dismissed behind closed doors.

Szilágyi also voiced centralization concerns. The developer accused Buterin of holding indirect but absolute influence over Ethereum’s ecosystem. According to Szilágyi, Buterin’s opinions, attention, and investments largely determined which projects thrive.

“I have the utmost respect for Vitalik, but he became a victim of his own success. Whether he wants to or not, he is – and has always been – directly defining what becomes successful in Ethereum and what doesn’t……Ethereum may be decentralised, but Vitalik absolutely has complete indirect control over it,” he wrote.

Szilágyi claimed that the ‘small ruling elite’ of 5-10 people around Buterin—held power in shaping the network’s direction. This concentration of power, he argued, contradicts Ethereum’s founding principle of open participation and equality.

“We set out to create a world of equal opportunity, yet all the most successful projects are directly backed by the same 5-10 people, behind who you can find the same 1-3 VCs. And all this direct control is one happy friend circle of Vitalik. Ethereum’s direction always boiled down to your relationship with Vitalik.”

Furthermore, Szilágyi criticized EF’s financial practices. He stressed that EF systematically underpaid the very people who built and maintained the network’s core infrastructure.

Szilágyi highlighted that over his first six years at the Foundation—while Ethereum’s market capitalization grew to hundreds of billions of dollars—his total earnings amounted to only $625 000 before taxes, with no incentives or equity.

“To paraphrase Vitalik: ‘if someone’s not complaining that they are paid too little, then they are paid too much.’ I truly believe this has been one of the biggest failures of EF leadership, and the fact that the Foundation is structured internally to deliberately hide this information, makes me firmly believe that even if originally this was accidental, the Foundation has since leaned full weight into it,” the former developer added.

Previosly, Szilágyi also alleged that the EF pressured the Geth team to spin out as an independent entity, offering $5 million to facilitate the separation.

Former Developer’s Letter Sparks Backlash Against Ethereum Foundation

Meanwhile, the revelations sparked intense criticism of the Ethereum Foundation from the community. Szilágyi’s comments about pay gaps quickly became a flashpoint, with many questioning how the foundation has been using its vast resources.

“if the lead dev at the ethereum foundation was making $100k/year for the last 6 years what have they been doing with the billions in eth they’ve been dumping all over our heads?” a user asked.

Sandeep Nailwal, CEO and co-founder of Polygon, also publicly questioned his loyalty to Ethereum. He expressed frustration over the lack of support from both the Ethereum Foundation and its core community.

Nailwal described the environment as exclusionary and noted a growing disconnect between Ethereum’s founding ideals and the way it treats major contributors like Polygon.

“The Ethereum community as a whole has been a shit show for quite some time….the Ethereum community ensures Polygon is never considered an L2 and is never included in the markets’ percieved Ethereum Beta…When Polymarket wins big, it’s “Ethereum,” but Polygon itself is not Ethereum. Mind-boggling,” he commented.

In response, Buterin sought to defuse tensions, posting a lengthy commendation of Nailwal and Polygon on X.

“I really appreciate both @sandeepnailwal’s personal contributions and @0xPolygon’ s immensely valuable role in the ethereum ecosystem,” he stated.

The executive praised Polygon for hosting Polymarket, supporting high-scalability applications and investing early resources in ZK-EVM research and developing key infrastructure like AggLayer. He also commended Nailwal for his philanthropy, including his leadership in CryptoRelief and returning $190 million in SHIB proceeds, which funded Buterin’s Balvi anti-pandemic initiative.

Nonetheless, neither the Ethereum Foundation nor Buterin have commented on the claims laid out in Szilágyi’s letter. The community now awaits Ethereum’s next actions, which could set major precedents for blockchain governance worldwide.