By Péter Szilágyi Compiled by GaryMa Wu on Blockchain Original link: https://gist.github.com/karalabe/a2bc53436f29e0711fe680d59e180f6c background Péter Szilágyi, a former Ethereum core developer and Geth maintainer, recently publicly disclosed a letter he sent to the leadership of the Ethereum Foundation (EF) a year and a half ago. In the letter, he frankly expressed his disappointment with the Ethereum Foundation and pointed out serious problems within the foundation, such as unfair salaries, conflicts of interest, and concentration of power. Péter Szilagyi, who has worked at the Ethereum Foundation since 2016, reportedly was fired in November after discovering a "secret second Geth team." He announced a leave of absence, but in reality, it was a one-on-one conversation with Josh Stark regarding the team. Within 24 hours, he was fired by the Foundation, citing "unacceptable threats of resignation and damage to team morale." This "secret" team may refer to the Geth rollup publicly announced in October, though never released through work channels. Furthermore, funding issues have surfaced, with Ethereum Foundation Co-Executive Director Tomasz K. Stańczak threatening to significantly reduce the salaries of Geth developers. Szilagyi also mentioned that the Foundation had repeatedly attempted to spin off Geth into a private entity, but Stańczak denied such plans. Szilagyi's previous outbursts over workload and salary issues have tested the patience of some investors. The Geth client suffers from issues such as an inability to flexibly prune storage like Bitcoin and Ethereum's L2 clients, a storage requirement of up to 700GB with no technical justification, and potential decentralization implications. Maintaining two clients also creates additional inefficiencies and complexity. The Foundation has repeatedly invited Szilagyi to return, but he declined, posing an apology as a condition. The following is a translation of the full letter: Hello everyone, Over the past few years, I've often felt insecure about Ethereum, my role on the Geth team, my role within the Ethereum Foundation (EF), and even my place in the Ethereum ecosystem as a whole. (No, I'm not resigning, at least not yet.) I've occasionally discussed various troubling issues with Felix, Martin, and occasionally Josh. These conversations always offer a moment of relief, but I always end up back where I started. I've even realized that I can't quite articulate what my real problem is (thanks to Felix for pointing that out). So, I decided to take some time to sort through my thoughts, and this post is essentially a summary of those reflections (or at least, I hope it will be one; I've only just begun writing it). Before I say anything negative about Ethereum or any particular person, I want to emphasize that I've always believed that Ethereum is a force for positive change in the world, and that the Foundation is a benign force behind that change (even though I've often criticized its decisions as naive). Working for Ethereum and the Foundation has been a privilege and a highlight of my career. I'm incredibly grateful for everything I've gained financially, personally, and professionally, and I'm constantly amazed at how people have tolerated me even when I've been embarrassing myself (sometimes publicly). For that, I'm deeply grateful. Please don't interpret any of the following criticisms as doomsaying about Ethereum's fate, but rather as my own personal reflections on why Ethereum failed for me. My main issue with Ethereum right now is the intense dissonance I perceive between my publicly stated role and how I'm actually treated behind the scenes. More often than not, the foundation portrays me as someone with a "leadership role" in the ecosystem; yet whenever public conflict arises, the foundation's stance is usually that "this is all planned" because Ethereum "values diverse perspectives." I challenge this narrative—Dankrad summed it up so elegantly in a private message: I simply hold a "perceived leadership role" (I envy his phrasing). I see myself as a "leader" simply because I've maintained Geth's public image for the past nine years; because I've held firm against some less-than-honest participants in the past; and because I've dared to publicly question those in power, sometimes even within the foundation itself. People love to see action, and what better way to demonstrate "impartiality" than when someone within the foundation publicly confronts the foundation? But personally, every such outburst erodes my social credit and the credibility of the Geth team. Every time I push back against a powerful figure, more and more voices come to their defense. For example, when I questioned Justin/Dankrad's conflict of interest, Giulio from Erigon immediately jumped to their defense, saying, "There's nothing wrong with accepting the highest bidder." Whatever the truth, I've long felt like a "useful idiot" in the eyes of the Foundation—a lose-lose situation for me. I could choose to remain silent and watch Geth and its values be trampled upon, allowing the big players to reshape the protocol at will. Or I could speak out, damaging my reputation every time I speak out because it would prevent certain individuals from profiting from Ethereum. Either way, the outcome would be the same: Geth (and therefore, myself) would eventually be removed from the game. Of course, I could also "turn the table" and exit—the same outcome, just faster. For better or worse, I believe the Foundation bears a significant responsibility: from promoting client diversity, to designing consensus penalty mechanisms, to getting influential researchers to promote new clients that "use dirty tricks but move in the right direction." Despite being one of the earliest teams in the ecosystem (besides Vitalik himself), I haven't felt much gratitude for sticking around. The sentiment is perfectly captured by the Twitter chatter: "Thanks for helping us build this empire, now let those who can make money take over." This is the first reason why I think Ethereum "failed" for me: we set out to build something great, but when enough money was on the table, we didn't hesitate to abandon our principles. This brings me to my second pain point in Ethereum: the conflict between workers and speculators. Working at the Ethereum Foundation has always been a poor financial decision. Since I initiated an "internal reform" two years ago, compensation for the Geth team has improved somewhat (for employees). But let's look at the numbers: in my first six years at Ethereum—from zero to $450 billion in market capitalization—my total compensation was $625,000 (pre-tax, total, six years, no incentives). This is a true reflection of what it's like to be a "worker" at the Ethereum Foundation. Geth's financial situation is better now, but I'm sure other positions within the Foundation (such as operations, administration, and even research) still make significantly less. This situation is a breeding ground for conflicts of interest and protocol capture. Almost all of the foundation's early employees have long since left, as that was the only way they could earn enough to justify their contributions. Those who remain are exploited by the foundation—they "do it for the sake of faith, not the money." In Vitalik's words, "If no one complains about being underpaid, then they're overpaid." I consider this one of the most significant failures of the foundation's leadership. The structure within the foundation, which deliberately keeps salary information secret, reinforces my belief that, even if it was initially an unintentional mistake, the foundation has become completely reliant on it. Why am I bringing this up now that Geth's financial situation has improved? Because the Foundation is effectively setting the stage for protocol capture. By systematically underpaying those who truly care about the protocol, the EF forces the most trusted individuals to seek compensation elsewhere. I believe Justin and Dankrad's recent advisory positions are blatant conflicts of interest and potential protocol capture, and they themselves are unreasonably downplaying the risks—yes, I do. But are they being paid unjustly? No. They are simply accepting the consequences of what the Foundation has sown. The genie is out of the bottle. The Foundation has deprived every employee of "life-changing wealth" over the past decade, and any attempt to remedy this situation is pointless. Blinded by their own bottomless reserves, and further detached from reality by Vitalik's personal wealth, the Foundation has never considered that the people who work for them deserve a similarly comfortable life. No one objects to founders receiving a share of their success, but the Foundation—under Vitalik's leadership—has gone to great lengths to avoid paying its employees fairly. This is the second reason why Ethereum "failed" for me: the Foundation put the protocol at risk of capture, not out of malice, but out of a kind of subtractive idealism—a naive belief, disconnected from reality, that people don't care about money. Next, let's talk about Ethereum's "high-level players." I have great respect for Vitalik, but he's become a victim of his own success. Whether he likes it or not, he has always—and still does—determine what succeeds and what doesn't in Ethereum. His focus, the research he guides, his donations and investments, virtually determine which projects succeed (with a very high probability). His opinions also directly define what is "allowed" and what is not in the ecosystem. In other words, the rule of survival in the gray area is to make Vitalik feel "okay." Ethereum may be decentralized, but Vitalik has absolute indirect control over it. This might not be a problem in itself, but over the past decade, the entire ecosystem has exploited this phenomenon. In the early days of the foundation, founders and early holders competed openly and covertly for power and influence. Later, meeting attendees realized that the key to success lay with Vitalik, and everyone worked to "encircle" him. Ultimately, this evolved into a small inner circle of "Ethereum thought leaders"—a group of five to ten individuals who invest in or serve as advisors to nearly every project. Today, success requires only the approval of these core figures (or Vitalik himself) (as Farcaster demonstrates). At this point, the problem isn't Vitalik himself; it's the formation of a "ruling elite" within Ethereum. New projects no longer raise funds publicly; instead, they directly approach the same five to ten familiar faces for investment or advisory positions. Everyone understands: if you can get Bankless to invest, they'll sing its praises on podcasts; if you can hire researchers as advisors, you'll not only solve technical problems but also mitigate the risk of friction with the Ethereum mainnet. The key to this gray area is getting those five people to agree. Look at every new project, and you'll see the same group of people fueling each other's momentum. Zoom in a little, and you'll see the same one to three venture capital firms behind it. This is the third reason why I consider Ethereum a "failure": We aspired to create a world where everyone is equal, but today's most successful projects are backed by the same 5-10 individuals, backed by the same venture capital firms. All power is concentrated in Vitalik's circle of friends. The direction of Ethereum ultimately depends on your relationship with Vitalik. It's simple: people are more tolerant of their friends than outsiders—so, to succeed, befriend the "kingmakers." I choose to remain distant because I find the idea of making friends for money disgusting; yet, it pains me deeply—because this is the reality of our "trustless little empire." As for where all this leads us, I honestly don't know. I don't think Ethereum is irreparable. I don't see any path to reversal. I feel the foundation's loyalties are already irrevocable. I feel Vitalik, despite his good intentions, has created a ruling class that will never relinquish power. You either go along with the crowd or get sidelined (at least they pay you well). As for Geth, I feel like we've been labeled a "problem" within the larger picture of Ethereum—and I'm right at the center of that problem—so I don't see any future for myself in continuing to fight this. Over the years, I've turned down many insanely high-paying offers simply to stay committed to Ethereum. This has always been the "right mindset" the Foundation has promoted. However, the entire Ethereum ecosystem has now unanimously decided, "This is just a business." I can't accept this mindset. I also question whether I can still stay in the ecosystem if I leave Ethereum or the Foundation. So, I'm currently caught between two difficult choices. Let's wait and see how the future unfolds. With the sincerest wishes, PeterBy Péter Szilágyi Compiled by GaryMa Wu on Blockchain Original link: https://gist.github.com/karalabe/a2bc53436f29e0711fe680d59e180f6c background Péter Szilágyi, a former Ethereum core developer and Geth maintainer, recently publicly disclosed a letter he sent to the leadership of the Ethereum Foundation (EF) a year and a half ago. In the letter, he frankly expressed his disappointment with the Ethereum Foundation and pointed out serious problems within the foundation, such as unfair salaries, conflicts of interest, and concentration of power. Péter Szilagyi, who has worked at the Ethereum Foundation since 2016, reportedly was fired in November after discovering a "secret second Geth team." He announced a leave of absence, but in reality, it was a one-on-one conversation with Josh Stark regarding the team. Within 24 hours, he was fired by the Foundation, citing "unacceptable threats of resignation and damage to team morale." This "secret" team may refer to the Geth rollup publicly announced in October, though never released through work channels. Furthermore, funding issues have surfaced, with Ethereum Foundation Co-Executive Director Tomasz K. Stańczak threatening to significantly reduce the salaries of Geth developers. Szilagyi also mentioned that the Foundation had repeatedly attempted to spin off Geth into a private entity, but Stańczak denied such plans. Szilagyi's previous outbursts over workload and salary issues have tested the patience of some investors. The Geth client suffers from issues such as an inability to flexibly prune storage like Bitcoin and Ethereum's L2 clients, a storage requirement of up to 700GB with no technical justification, and potential decentralization implications. Maintaining two clients also creates additional inefficiencies and complexity. The Foundation has repeatedly invited Szilagyi to return, but he declined, posing an apology as a condition. The following is a translation of the full letter: Hello everyone, Over the past few years, I've often felt insecure about Ethereum, my role on the Geth team, my role within the Ethereum Foundation (EF), and even my place in the Ethereum ecosystem as a whole. (No, I'm not resigning, at least not yet.) I've occasionally discussed various troubling issues with Felix, Martin, and occasionally Josh. These conversations always offer a moment of relief, but I always end up back where I started. I've even realized that I can't quite articulate what my real problem is (thanks to Felix for pointing that out). So, I decided to take some time to sort through my thoughts, and this post is essentially a summary of those reflections (or at least, I hope it will be one; I've only just begun writing it). Before I say anything negative about Ethereum or any particular person, I want to emphasize that I've always believed that Ethereum is a force for positive change in the world, and that the Foundation is a benign force behind that change (even though I've often criticized its decisions as naive). Working for Ethereum and the Foundation has been a privilege and a highlight of my career. I'm incredibly grateful for everything I've gained financially, personally, and professionally, and I'm constantly amazed at how people have tolerated me even when I've been embarrassing myself (sometimes publicly). For that, I'm deeply grateful. Please don't interpret any of the following criticisms as doomsaying about Ethereum's fate, but rather as my own personal reflections on why Ethereum failed for me. My main issue with Ethereum right now is the intense dissonance I perceive between my publicly stated role and how I'm actually treated behind the scenes. More often than not, the foundation portrays me as someone with a "leadership role" in the ecosystem; yet whenever public conflict arises, the foundation's stance is usually that "this is all planned" because Ethereum "values diverse perspectives." I challenge this narrative—Dankrad summed it up so elegantly in a private message: I simply hold a "perceived leadership role" (I envy his phrasing). I see myself as a "leader" simply because I've maintained Geth's public image for the past nine years; because I've held firm against some less-than-honest participants in the past; and because I've dared to publicly question those in power, sometimes even within the foundation itself. People love to see action, and what better way to demonstrate "impartiality" than when someone within the foundation publicly confronts the foundation? But personally, every such outburst erodes my social credit and the credibility of the Geth team. Every time I push back against a powerful figure, more and more voices come to their defense. For example, when I questioned Justin/Dankrad's conflict of interest, Giulio from Erigon immediately jumped to their defense, saying, "There's nothing wrong with accepting the highest bidder." Whatever the truth, I've long felt like a "useful idiot" in the eyes of the Foundation—a lose-lose situation for me. I could choose to remain silent and watch Geth and its values be trampled upon, allowing the big players to reshape the protocol at will. Or I could speak out, damaging my reputation every time I speak out because it would prevent certain individuals from profiting from Ethereum. Either way, the outcome would be the same: Geth (and therefore, myself) would eventually be removed from the game. Of course, I could also "turn the table" and exit—the same outcome, just faster. For better or worse, I believe the Foundation bears a significant responsibility: from promoting client diversity, to designing consensus penalty mechanisms, to getting influential researchers to promote new clients that "use dirty tricks but move in the right direction." Despite being one of the earliest teams in the ecosystem (besides Vitalik himself), I haven't felt much gratitude for sticking around. The sentiment is perfectly captured by the Twitter chatter: "Thanks for helping us build this empire, now let those who can make money take over." This is the first reason why I think Ethereum "failed" for me: we set out to build something great, but when enough money was on the table, we didn't hesitate to abandon our principles. This brings me to my second pain point in Ethereum: the conflict between workers and speculators. Working at the Ethereum Foundation has always been a poor financial decision. Since I initiated an "internal reform" two years ago, compensation for the Geth team has improved somewhat (for employees). But let's look at the numbers: in my first six years at Ethereum—from zero to $450 billion in market capitalization—my total compensation was $625,000 (pre-tax, total, six years, no incentives). This is a true reflection of what it's like to be a "worker" at the Ethereum Foundation. Geth's financial situation is better now, but I'm sure other positions within the Foundation (such as operations, administration, and even research) still make significantly less. This situation is a breeding ground for conflicts of interest and protocol capture. Almost all of the foundation's early employees have long since left, as that was the only way they could earn enough to justify their contributions. Those who remain are exploited by the foundation—they "do it for the sake of faith, not the money." In Vitalik's words, "If no one complains about being underpaid, then they're overpaid." I consider this one of the most significant failures of the foundation's leadership. The structure within the foundation, which deliberately keeps salary information secret, reinforces my belief that, even if it was initially an unintentional mistake, the foundation has become completely reliant on it. Why am I bringing this up now that Geth's financial situation has improved? Because the Foundation is effectively setting the stage for protocol capture. By systematically underpaying those who truly care about the protocol, the EF forces the most trusted individuals to seek compensation elsewhere. I believe Justin and Dankrad's recent advisory positions are blatant conflicts of interest and potential protocol capture, and they themselves are unreasonably downplaying the risks—yes, I do. But are they being paid unjustly? No. They are simply accepting the consequences of what the Foundation has sown. The genie is out of the bottle. The Foundation has deprived every employee of "life-changing wealth" over the past decade, and any attempt to remedy this situation is pointless. Blinded by their own bottomless reserves, and further detached from reality by Vitalik's personal wealth, the Foundation has never considered that the people who work for them deserve a similarly comfortable life. No one objects to founders receiving a share of their success, but the Foundation—under Vitalik's leadership—has gone to great lengths to avoid paying its employees fairly. This is the second reason why Ethereum "failed" for me: the Foundation put the protocol at risk of capture, not out of malice, but out of a kind of subtractive idealism—a naive belief, disconnected from reality, that people don't care about money. Next, let's talk about Ethereum's "high-level players." I have great respect for Vitalik, but he's become a victim of his own success. Whether he likes it or not, he has always—and still does—determine what succeeds and what doesn't in Ethereum. His focus, the research he guides, his donations and investments, virtually determine which projects succeed (with a very high probability). His opinions also directly define what is "allowed" and what is not in the ecosystem. In other words, the rule of survival in the gray area is to make Vitalik feel "okay." Ethereum may be decentralized, but Vitalik has absolute indirect control over it. This might not be a problem in itself, but over the past decade, the entire ecosystem has exploited this phenomenon. In the early days of the foundation, founders and early holders competed openly and covertly for power and influence. Later, meeting attendees realized that the key to success lay with Vitalik, and everyone worked to "encircle" him. Ultimately, this evolved into a small inner circle of "Ethereum thought leaders"—a group of five to ten individuals who invest in or serve as advisors to nearly every project. Today, success requires only the approval of these core figures (or Vitalik himself) (as Farcaster demonstrates). At this point, the problem isn't Vitalik himself; it's the formation of a "ruling elite" within Ethereum. New projects no longer raise funds publicly; instead, they directly approach the same five to ten familiar faces for investment or advisory positions. Everyone understands: if you can get Bankless to invest, they'll sing its praises on podcasts; if you can hire researchers as advisors, you'll not only solve technical problems but also mitigate the risk of friction with the Ethereum mainnet. The key to this gray area is getting those five people to agree. Look at every new project, and you'll see the same group of people fueling each other's momentum. Zoom in a little, and you'll see the same one to three venture capital firms behind it. This is the third reason why I consider Ethereum a "failure": We aspired to create a world where everyone is equal, but today's most successful projects are backed by the same 5-10 individuals, backed by the same venture capital firms. All power is concentrated in Vitalik's circle of friends. The direction of Ethereum ultimately depends on your relationship with Vitalik. It's simple: people are more tolerant of their friends than outsiders—so, to succeed, befriend the "kingmakers." I choose to remain distant because I find the idea of making friends for money disgusting; yet, it pains me deeply—because this is the reality of our "trustless little empire." As for where all this leads us, I honestly don't know. I don't think Ethereum is irreparable. I don't see any path to reversal. I feel the foundation's loyalties are already irrevocable. I feel Vitalik, despite his good intentions, has created a ruling class that will never relinquish power. You either go along with the crowd or get sidelined (at least they pay you well). As for Geth, I feel like we've been labeled a "problem" within the larger picture of Ethereum—and I'm right at the center of that problem—so I don't see any future for myself in continuing to fight this. Over the years, I've turned down many insanely high-paying offers simply to stay committed to Ethereum. This has always been the "right mindset" the Foundation has promoted. However, the entire Ethereum ecosystem has now unanimously decided, "This is just a business." I can't accept this mindset. I also question whether I can still stay in the ecosystem if I leave Ethereum or the Foundation. So, I'm currently caught between two difficult choices. Let's wait and see how the future unfolds. With the sincerest wishes, Peter