Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin addressed growing criticisms of the Ethereum Foundation (EF), emphasizing that the organization is not the “center” of Ethereum but rather one node among many in the ecosystem.
In an X post, Buterin explained that the EF’s mandate is to promote censorship resistance, open-source development, and long-term research, rather than to act as a price-support mechanism for ETH.
This stance reflects a philosophical commitment to decentralization, ensuring that Ethereum remains a protocol governed by a broad community rather than a centralized authority.
Buterin noted that the EF holds only about 0.16% of all ETH in circulation, a stark contrast to other blockchain foundations that often control between 10% and 50% of their native tokens.
This limited treasury underscores the EF’s neutrality and its reluctance to manipulate markets or engage in aggressive promotional campaigns, garnering critics.
Criticism Amid Market Pressures
EF’s neutral stance has drawn criticism, particularly as Ethereum’s price has struggled. ETH currently trades around $2,094, more than 50% below its all-time high of nearly $5,000 reached in August 2025.
Some large holders have liquidated their positions, and the Foundation has seen high-profile departures, fueling speculation about its direction.
Crypto journalist Laura Shin argued that Ethereum’s “original sin” was neglecting tokenomics in its decision-making, particularly after the Dencun upgrade in March 2024, which reduced layer-2 transaction fees but also slashed base layer revenue.
Many investors, she suggested, want to see Ethereum “put points on the scoreboard” by demonstrating stronger financial performance alongside its technological advances.
Treasury Strategy and Unstaking
In May 2026, the EF unstaked 21,270 ETH from the Lido liquid staking platform, sparking speculation about whether it planned to sell.
Buterin clarified that the move was part of a broader treasury strategy aimed at stretching funds for long-term research rather than short-term gains. By reducing reliance on staking yields, the EF signaled its intent to prioritize sustainability and independence over immediate financial returns.
Neutrality vs. Market Expectations
The tension between neutrality and market expectations is central to the current debate.
Critics argue that the EF’s refusal to engage in token price management leaves Ethereum vulnerable to investor disillusionment, especially during downturns.
Supporters counter that neutrality is essential to preserving Ethereum’s credibility as a decentralized protocol.
Blockchain researcher Amin Haqshanas defended the EF, stating that it is “doing exactly its job” by focusing on research and protocol development rather than tokenomics.
Broader Implications for Ethereum
Buterin’s remarks highlight a broader philosophical divide in the crypto industry. Some projects, like Solana or Avalanche, have embraced aggressive marketing and token management strategies to attract users and investors.
Ethereum, by contrast, continues to emphasize decentralization and neutrality, even at the cost of short-term market performance. This approach may frustrate traders but aligns with Ethereum’s long-term vision of being a resilient, censorship-resistant platform for decentralized applications.
The debate also raises questions about governance in decentralized ecosystems.
If the EF is not the “center” of Ethereum, then responsibility for tokenomics and market positioning falls to the broader community, including developers, validators, and independent organizations. This distributed model reflects Ethereum’s ethos but also creates challenges in coordinating strategy during periods of market stress.
Ultimately, Vitalik Buterin’s defense of the Ethereum Foundation underscores a deliberate choice to prioritize neutrality, decentralization, and long-term research over token price management. While critics argue that this stance leaves Ethereum vulnerable in a competitive market, supporters see it as essential to preserving the protocol’s integrity.
As Ethereum navigates falling prices, internal departures, and external criticism, the Foundation’s commitment to neutrality may prove both its greatest strength and its most controversial decision.
In the end, Ethereum’s future will depend not on the Foundation alone but on the collective actions of its global community.
