Ethereum Foundation director defends mandate as leadership exodus deepens

The Ethereum Foundation has clarified that it will not reshape itself around community popularity. It argues that its purpose does not include chasing approval from the broader ecosystem.

The Ethereum Foundation is facing a turbulent year after facing an exodus of several staff members. A contributor to the Foundation has taken to X (formerly Twitter) to explain to the community what it stands for, following much debate.  

Another director gone from the Ethereum Foundation? 

On June 22, the Ethereum Foundation experienced its second departure from the top role in just five months when Hsiao-Wei Wang stepped down as co-executive director and board member. Tomasz Stańczak was the first to leave back in February, leaving Bastian Aue as the sole interim director. 

At least eight senior figures have left since January, including researchers and coordinators like Josh Stark, Trent Van Epps, Tim Beiko, and Barnabé Monnot. 

So far, there are varied reasons behind the departures including personal choice, disagreements with company strategies and the company has even claimed that the departures were a deliberate organizational shift. 

Hsiao-Wei Wang, who spent eight years at the Foundation, said a recent break from work helped her realize it was “the right time to step back.” 

However, former researcher Dankrad Feist argued that the departing contributors are leaving due to management issues. Coinbase’s head of engineering, Yuga Cohler, expressed sadness over the “dysfunction at the Ethereum Foundation.”

The Foundation’s interim co-executive director Bastian Aue, who posts as Aerugo on X, stressed that the Foundation will not discuss individual personnel matters publicly but will clarify policy or factual issues if necessary to avoid misleading the public.

The statement explicitly states that the Foundation will not restructure itself for popularity in the ecosystem and it goes on to clarify that the Foundation is not trying to please short-term speculators or promote every app on Ethereum.

The company’s co-founder Vitalik Buterin has outlined a new, tighter mandate focusing on Censorship Resistance, Capture Resistance, Openness, Privacy, and Security (CROPS).

Is Ethereum’s development in danger?

The Foundation paid teams to build and maintain the core software clients in a four-year Client Incentive Program (CIP), but that expired earlier this year in April. 

The Foundation’s former contributor Trent Van Epps has warned that this creates a “slow-burning funding crisis” for core development because maintaining the more than ten client teams, as well as research and coordination efforts, costs roughly $30 million per year. 

The Foundation cannot afford that without new funding. He estimates the gap will be felt within three to nine months, leading to a loss of talent and stalled progress on critical upgrades.

Critics, like Marc Zeller of Aave Chan Initiative, argue the Foundation could have staked its reserves long ago to fund operations indefinitely and called its financial stewardship “incompetent.” 

Keyring Network founder Alex McPharlane estimated the Foundation holds between $500 million and $900 million in liquid assets.

To fill the gap, the ecosystem is looking to alternatives like Protocol Guild, which has an independent collective that pools donations and token distributions for Ethereum contributors. It has distributed roughly $38 million since 2022. However, it relies on voluntary contributions rather than a predictable budget. 

The “programmable charity lottery” launched by Megapot, which aims to direct 100% of its referral fees to Protocol Guild, has also been taken into consideration.

The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.