An old letter sparks a loyalty crisis as Ethereum Foundation faces renewed criticism

Chainfeeds Guide:

Ethereum's biggest enemy is the Ethereum Foundation itself.

Source:

Author:

Deep Tide TechFlow

Opinion:

Deep Tide TechFlow: On May 22, 2024, when Péter Szilágyi wrote this letter, he was perhaps caught in a painful cycle. The letter begins sincerely. Péter says that over the years, he has become increasingly confused and distressed about Ethereum and his role in the Foundation. He tried to sort out his thoughts, which led to this letter. The entire content of the letter reflects the many issues regarding Ethereum and the Foundation that a loyal developer has witnessed throughout his career. Issue one: Called a leader, but actually a useful fool. Péter bluntly states that he feels the Foundation is using him as a "useful fool." He explains that whenever there is controversy within Ethereum—such as a researcher receiving money from an external company causing a conflict of interest, or a new proposal clearly favoring a particular interest group—the Foundation would have him, the troublemaker, step forward to oppose it. Looking back at Péter’s previous tweets, there is indeed a tone of criticism and candor, often discussing issues within the Ethereum ecosystem; but the content revealed in this long letter suggests that these remarks were more like a performance to cater to the collective interests of the Ethereum Foundation. Issue two: Six years of salary totaling only $600,000, high effort with low return. In his first six years working at Ethereum (2015-2021), Péter received a total of $625,000. Note, this is the total for six years, pre-tax, with no equity or incentives. That’s about $100,000 per year on average. During the same period, ETH’s market cap rose from zero to $450 billions. As the person responsible for maintaining the most critical infrastructure of the entire network, Péter’s salary might even be lower than that of a newly graduated programmer in Silicon Valley. He mentioned that other departments in the Foundation, such as operations, DevOps, and even some researchers, receive even lower salaries. Why is this the case? Péter quoted something Vitalik once said: "If no one complains that the salary is too low, then the salary is too high." Focusing on technology and not caring much about returns is indeed the ideal image of some tech geeks and cypherpunks. But the problem is that a long-term low-salary culture leads to negative consequences. Those who truly care about protocol development, unable to get good pay within Ethereum, are forced to seek compensation elsewhere. This leads to various conflicts of interest: researchers acting as consultants for external projects, core developers privately accepting sponsorships. Issue three: Vitalik and his circle. The sharpest part of the letter is the analysis of Ethereum’s power structure. Péter admits he has great respect for Vitalik himself, but points out a fact: whether Vitalik wants it or not, he unilaterally decides the direction of Ethereum. Wherever Vitalik’s attention goes, resources follow; whatever project he invests in, that project succeeds; whatever technical route he endorses, that route becomes mainstream. Worse, a ruling elite of 5-10 people has formed around Vitalik. These people invest in each other, act as each other’s advisors, and control the allocation of resources in the ecosystem. New projects no longer do public fundraising, but instead go directly to these 5-10 people. Getting their investment is equivalent to getting a ticket to success.