If we had to sum up, what's the problem with the Ethereum Foundation at the moment?
There's discontent in the ecosystem, and it's important to understand where it's coming from. The crypto market has been bullish overall in recent months, but ETH is underperforming compared to other assets. This naturally prompts the community to look for someone to blame, and the Ethereum Foundation is the obvious culprit. It bears the name Ethereum, it holds the trademark, it is highly visible... So many people are asking: "If ETH isn't rising, is it the foundation's fault?" And this criticism extends to the question of leadership, both externally and internally. Is the Foundation playing its role properly? Does it take the right decisions? And above all, is it communicating well about what it is doing?
The problem is that the Foundation has provided grist for the critics' mill by publishing its annual report. Normally, this kind of publication is supposed to clarify things, but in this case it had the opposite effect. Many people had the impression that the report contained almost nothing useful, apart from one piece of information: the foundation sells a lot of Ethers. And from there, it triggered a snowball effect on X and elsewhere. Criticism began to pour in: "The foundation sells everything, the foundation does nothing, the foundation is useless. I think you have to separate form from content. In terms of form, yes, the Foundation has communicated badly. But in terms of substance, there are criticisms to be taken into account, and others that are more debatable. What is certain is that the Ethereum community is very vocal, especially when it feels that something is not working. We never hesitate to debate openly and sometimes violently.
Which criticisms are justified?
You have to put things into perspective. The Ethereum Foundation represents an ecosystem with a market capitalisation of over $300 billion. Is it absurd for an organisation of that size to spend $100 million a year? No, it's not absurd at all. A foundation that supports such a huge industry needs resources. Let's take a concrete example: researchers. If we want to attract the best researchers in cryptography, IT or decentralised finance, we need to offer them competitive salaries. A researcher can easily be paid 300,000 dollars a year, especially if they work on complex subjects. When you take into account charges, taxes and all the associated costs, you quickly arrive at an envelope of several tens of millions. So no, it's not an irrational budget. Where the criticism is more pertinent is with regard to transparency. We know that the foundation is spending 100 million dollars, but we don't know exactly how. In its report, there are budget lines that are not detailed enough, headings that look the same and we don't really know where the money is going. Are there duplications? Are some teams receiving funding without any real justification? We just don't know. And that's where doubts start to creep in.
The foundation has taken a first step towards greater transparency by publishing its expenditure, but it doesn't go far enough. What's missing is a more granular explanation: how many people are employed, what major projects are funded, what are the concrete objectives of this spending. All we know today is that they sell ethers, and that inevitably fuels paranoia. Then there's the question of ETH sales. Every time the foundation sells, it's seen as a bearish signal by the market. On Twitter, there's a joke going around: "The top signal is when the Foundation sells." This shouldn't be the case. The solution would be quite simple: announce a clear, structured sales programme. Say at the start of the year: "We're going to sell X million ETH at such and such a frequency. That would avoid these overreactions and give the market better visibility.
>> Read also: Ethereum (ETH): What's next for the protocol and its token? (2024)
There is also criticism of leadership. Its executive director Aya Miyaguchi has been in post since 2018, that's seven years. Wouldn't a renewal be a good thing?
That's quite a long time for this type of organisation. Now, has it failed? If you look at the facts, it's hard to say. Between 2018 and today, ETH has grown x100 in value. So from a strictly financial point of view, we can't say that the Foundation has failed. Technically too, Ethereum has achieved major things under his leadership: we've moved to Proof of Stake, we've done the Merge , we've made progress on scalability solutions. So its track record is far from catastrophic. But the question of renewal is a legitimate one. Seven years in a management position can lead to fatigue. It might be a good idea to introduce limited terms of office to avoid wear and tear and encourage natural renewal. Another problem is the narrative. Ethereum has gone from "The World Computer" to "Infinite Garden", and frankly, it's not an easy message to sell. It's too abstract, too conceptual. Institutional investors, developers and even the general public have trouble understanding what it means in concrete terms. We need a stronger, more accessible message.
Your name is being bandied about to take over as head of the foundation. Is this a position that might interest you?
I haven't received any calls, and I'm not campaigning. I shared my ideas because I saw that the debate was becoming too virulent and that certain criticisms lacked clarity. But I'm not knocking on the foundation's door and saying "Take me". After that, of course, if someone were to contact me to exchange views, I'd be delighted to discuss it. But today, that's not the case. And then I have a business, a family, I'm in the process of moving to New York... This kind of position is a huge commitment. You have to weigh up the pros and cons carefully.
But what if Vitalik Buterin, whose position is decisive, called you tomorrow?
Of course I'd take the call. But you have to think about the upside. It's a very exposed position, where you take a lot of criticism and you're under the spotlight all the time. It's not easy to say to yourself "Yes, I absolutely want this job". Today, in all honesty, Cometh is a better bet for me. But if the Ethereum Foundation came to me and said "We'd like you to help us structure things", I'd be happy to do my bit.
What is your relationship with him?
I think my relationship with Vitalik is good, but you have to understand the dynamic around him. He's not someone I talk to every day, I'm not part of his inner circle, but we've known each other for about 10 years now. I met him in person in Shanghai in 2016, he's already come to eat at my place, we've had discussions about Ethereum, the foundation and the ecosystem in general. But I'm not one of the people close to him who talk to him all the time or who are involved in his strategic decisions. If I send him a message, he usually gets back to me within four weeks, which, given his schedule, is already a good sign (laughs).
He has a huge influence on Ethereum, but it's not a classic operational influence like that of a CEO. He doesn't run the Foundation on a day-to-day basis, but he is the main architect. He has three of the five votes on the board of the Ethereum Foundation, so in reality, he makes all the major strategic decisions. He's the one who chooses the executive director, he's the one who sets the broad direction. He doesn't deal with day-to-day management, but if a major decision has to be taken, it necessarily goes through him.
His role has also evolved over time. A few years ago, he was more active in technical debates and intervened more frequently on development issues. Today, he is more of a visionary and guarantor of Ethereum's fundamental principles. He remains one of the biggest assets of the ecosystem, because his influence is global. When Vitalik supports an idea, it carries weight, whether with developers, institutions or even regulators. He has this unique ability to articulate a vision that inspires and attracts the best talent to Ethereum.
He's also a very special personality, almost elusive. He doesn't have the classic codes of leadership, he doesn't have a political or authoritarian approach, but he's always there in the background to make sure that the direction taken is in line with his original vision of Ethereum. And to come back to my relationship with him, I think he's always had a positive view of what we're doing in France. Ethereum France has always been an active and committed ecosystem, and he has often shown his support for the initiatives developed there. But do I call him every morning to discuss the foundation? No, clearly not.
What's interesting about the current period is that Vitalik himself has acknowledged that there are ongoing discussions about changes within the foundation. He didn't give a precise timetable, but he hinted that changes were coming. We don't yet know exactly what form they will take, but what is certain is that if something has to change, it will inevitably come from him.
What would need to be done in the first 100 days if you were head of the Foundation?
If tomorrow, by hypothesis, I were head of the Ethereum Foundation, there would be several projects to launch immediately to restore trust and improve its operation. The first 100 days should be structured around six priority areas: narrative, financial transparency, management of ETH sales, engagement with institutions, support for the ecosystem and improving the internal governance model.
First, Ethereum's narrative should be clarified and strengthened. The shift from "World Computer" to "Infinite Garden" has created a form of confusion in the ecosystem, particularly on the part of investors and businesses seeking to understand what Ethereum is today. This message needs to be simplified and structured to be more accessible. Ethereum is first and foremost a decentralised global infrastructure that enables applications to be run and trust to be organised on a large scale. We need to hammer home this message clearly and forcefully. Today, even on Wall Street, it's hard to explain simply what Ethereum is, and that's a problem. It's not by hiring a communications agency that this will be solved, but by reworking our own discourse so that it resonates with developers, investors and end users alike.
Next, financial transparency must be strengthened. Publishing an annual report is all well and good, but it still has to be detailed and understandable. Today, we don't know exactly where the Foundation's $100 million expenditure goes. Who receives the funding? How many people actually work for the Foundation? What are the strategic projects? The aim would be to produce a more granular report that clearly explains each budget item, without unnecessary jargon. It's not about exposing ourselves, but showing that resources are being used efficiently and aligned with Ethereum's objectives.
The management of ETH sales is also a crucial topic. Today, the Foundation sells its ethers without prior announcement, which creates uncertainty and fuels criticism. A simple solution would be to announce an annual sales programme in advance, with defined amounts and frequencies. In this way, the market is prepared, and we avoid the phenomenon of the "top signal" at each sale. We could even go further by exploring more sophisticated strategies, such as using decentralised trading protocols like CowSwap to optimise transactions and reduce their impact on the market.
Another fundamental axis: engagement with institutions. Ethereum is a global infrastructure, but today the Foundation has too little presence in discussions with governments, central banks and major groups. While other blockchains, such as Solana and Avalanche, are developing strategic partnerships and multiplying institutional initiatives, Ethereum gives the impression of being in the background. It's not a question of 'selling out', but of explaining to decision-makers why Ethereum is an open standard that can benefit everyone. We need to develop a more structured dialogue with these players, relying in particular on initiatives such as the Ethereum Enterprise Alliance and other nascent lobbying groups.
Support for the ecosystem also needs to be strengthened. Historically, Ethereum has always been driven by an extremely dynamic community. But with the transition to Proof of Stake, we lost a key element of adoption: the individual miners, those enthusiasts who contributed to the security of the network and who, in return, got rewards. Today, staking has taken over, but it is largely dominated by large entities. We need to give individuals and small contributors back the opportunity to participate actively in Ethereum. This means setting up new incentive mechanisms, such as more accessible bounty programmes or funding initiatives for open-source developers. We should also encourage education and training, particularly in regions of the world where Ethereum can have a major economic and social impact.
Finally, we should lay the foundations for better internal governance. Today, the Foundation operates in an opaque way. It is not clear how strategic decisions are taken, or what rules govern conflicts of interest. Clearer governance principles need to be put in place, with time-limited mandates for directors and more open consultation mechanisms. It is not a question of transforming the Foundation into a DAO, but at least of giving greater visibility to its internal workings and guaranteeing regular rotation of key posts.
This programme is ambitious, but it is achievable in 100 days. The aim is not to revolutionise everything overnight, but to lay solid foundations for the Foundation to operate more efficiently and transparently. Ethereum is currently the most widely used and robust blockchain protocol on the market. But if it is to maintain its leadership, the Foundation needs to live up to its role. What the ecosystem is waiting for is not a radical change, but a gradual and pragmatic improvement in the way Ethereum is managed and represented.
Why isn't the Foundation's reserve being staked and should it be?
The main reason why the Ethereum Foundation doesn't stake its Ethers is a question of neutrality and governance. Today, Ethereum operates with a Proof of Stake mechanism where validators play a crucial role in the security of the network. If the Foundation decided to stake a large part of its reserve, it would automatically become one of the biggest validators, which would pose a problem in terms of decentralisation and concentration of power. One of the fundamental principles of Ethereum is to avoid too much influence being concentrated in the hands of a single entity.
The other reason is that if the Foundation starts to stage, it enters into competition with the other players on the network. Today, platforms such as Lido, Rocket Pool, or even centralised services such as Coinbase and Binance allow anyone to stage their Ethers and earn returns. If the Foundation were to do the same, it would give the impression of favouring a centralised staking model under its control, which could damage the credibility of the system and create distortions in the ecosystem.
Then there are also technical and organisational issues. If the Foundation decided to store part of its reserves, it would have to manage a dedicated infrastructure, with teams responsible for validating and managing the funds. This is not insignificant: in the event of a technical problem, poor configuration or errors, ethers could be penalised and slashed. Managing staking in-house requires constant monitoring, which could distract the Foundation from its main mission, which is research and development of the protocol.
Now, should it? There's a debate. On the one hand, if it stake, it could generate passive income that would fund its activities without having to regularly sell Ethers. It would be a more sustainable way of managing its resources. But on the other hand, it raises problems of governance and ecosystem balance. An alternative might be to use its ETH reserves to act as a liquidity guarantor for the staking ETFs that are emerging in Europe and very soon in the United States. Rather than staking directly, the Foundation could offer to act as an "emergency reserve" to guarantee the liquidity of these instruments in the event of momentary mass withdrawals, without intervening directly in the network.
Is the Foundation's policy, which is supposed to prevent conflicts of interest, satisfactory?
Today, the Ethereum Foundation's policy on preventing conflicts of interest is still rather vague and insufficiently communicated. It came to the fore at the end of last year, after a number of controversies involving members of the Foundation who were also acting as advisers on private projects. What was disturbing was not just the fact that Foundation employees had interests in certain projects, but rather the lack of transparency surrounding these involvements. In an ecosystem where neutrality and independence are essential, this raised questions about possible favouritism or misuse of influence.
Another problematic point is that the Foundation plays a key role in funding research and development. When a researcher or developer is funded by the Foundation and at the same time has an interest in a project that could benefit from a protocol update, there is a grey area that can become problematic. Take the example of an employee working on staking or restaking solutions: if that same employee is paid by a DeFi protocol that wants to influence Ethereum's technical direction, how can we be sure that his recommendations are purely objective and not influenced by his financial interests?
That said, some measures have been taken. For example, after the controversy over Justin Drake and other researchers affiliated with certain projects, members of the Foundation decided to give up their tokens and advisor roles to avoid any conflict of interest. This is a good signal, but it doesn't completely resolve the issue.
A policy has been formalized and appended to the Foundation's annual report. This is an excellent commitment, and many criteria are already described in this first version. Let's hope it will silence the critics.
