Key researchers exit Ethereum Foundation as uncertainty grows

Community reacts to departures

The abrupt exits at the beginning of the week initially sparked widespread surprise, but quickly led to a more serious debate about the Ethereum Foundation’s ability to effectively steer the ecosystem. Community members, investors, and former contributors have begun to publicly debate the reasons behind these departures and are offering their own interpretations of what they call a failure in institutional leadership.

With no clear communication from EF, a range of perspectives is emerging about the ongoing process. The absence of a statement has only amplified existing criticism regarding leadership and management strategy, further heightening the general sense of uncertainty.

Leadership scrutiny and proposed solutions

Former Ethereum Foundation researcher Dankrad Feist has emerged as a central figure in this debate, highlighting misalignments between the foundation’s structure and the network’s economic incentives. According to Feist, a fundamental problem is that Ethereum Foundation does not have significant financial influence over the ecosystem. He pointed out that EF holds less than 0.1% of all ETH in circulation and receives no direct income from staking rewards or transaction fees.

Dankrad Feist argued, “The way to rescue Ethereum is to create a new structure that is directly tied to the network and aligned with the economic interests of the community.”

Feist advocated for the creation of a new institution focused on growth, accountability, and maintaining a consistent flow of funding for the network. Among his proposals are a $1 billion treasury fueled partly by staking income and a governing board incentivized by increases in ETH’s price.

Mini glossary: Dankrad Feist is a longtime Ethereum Foundation researcher who has contributed academically to the technical and strategic development of the Ethereum network.

Debate over tokenomics and ideology

Crypto journalist Laura Shin has also weighed in, criticizing the Ethereum Foundation’s lack of focus on tokenomics in its recent strategies. She argued that the rollout of the Dencun upgrade in 2024, which made transactions cheaper on sidechains, undermined the network’s original investment narrative.

Shin noted, “Ethereum’s main mistake was failing to consider each move after Dencun through the lens of tokenomics.”

Shin and others argue that the “ultrasound money” narrative—once compelling to investors because ETH scarcity increased through burn mechanisms—has lost traction due to the new scaling roadmap. She further criticized the foundation for prioritizing ideological debates while neglecting crucial areas such as competition, business development, and the importance of ETH price.

Internal disputes and leadership questions

Reports have surfaced suggesting that the Ethereum Foundation recently required some contributors to sign specific mandates. Recent executive appointments and the decision-making process have also become subjects of internal debate, as concerns mount over whether leadership changes played a role in the latest resignations.

The absence of an official response from the organization has left plenty of room for speculation. According to Shin, the back-to-back departures of key individuals have led to a loss of high-caliber talent and may accelerate a “brain drain” within the ecosystem.

Shin has emphasized that the leadership’s reluctance to address this talent exodus could end up strengthening rival projects in the crypto sector.