Peter Kaas

Personal onions only.

[Tay 💖 @tayvano_]

spoiler: far FAR too few

most people are running and hiding from the ai slop and shutting down their bug bounty programs

lol

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

@MsMelChen The solution is to rally around open source.

That's the only way to compete with a superpower technology network effect if you are not a superpower yourself. And it's the only way to bring the rest of the world along on the same team as you.

Open source.

[zooko🛡🦓🦓🦓 ⓩ @zooko]

Everything Durov says about the bullshit WhatsApp lawsuit, about France, about "not one byte"—it is all just flim-flam to distract you from the important thing: *end-to-end-encryption*. If you use Signal, WhatsApp, or iMessage, your messages are secure. Not so on Telegram. 🔚

[Peter Kaas @mepak]

This is rumor-control, here are the facts:

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

Some of my perspective on where the @ethereumfndn is going.

First of all, this is only my own view. The board is not just me, and I have no extra special powers on the board that the other board members do not. @aerugoettinea is the one executing much of this transition. My input has been largely on technical questions. The board is in the process of expanding, and my own power within the org will continue to decrease, which is honestly what I want.

The 2025 era brought many important improvements to EF and its ability to execute. Many issues were resolved, and EF continues to benefit from its improved efficiency and greater focus on concrete goals to this day. And so with those problems resolved, early this year, the largest remaining hole that I perceived was something different nagging at me: I would regularly spot people saying things like "vitalik says these beautiful things about ethereum needing to be decentralized, and have privacy, and be a sanctuary technology, but why do the EF's actions not reflect that?"

Now, you may have been hearing something different. You may not have been sensing a feeling of crisis at all, and maybe were hearing people saying that finally we were taking execution and BD seriously and the main task for us is to keep going that way and be even better and faster. Then probably there is genuine difference between you and me, in what kinds of criticism I take most seriously, and what kinds of critics through their criticism are most able to make me feel pain.

As an analogy, let's briefly switch over to a different domain.

One belief you can have about Google is that it is a success story, and has brought a lot of good to humanity in organizing the world's information. Another belief you can have about Google is that they had a beautiful idealistic beginning, but at some point the corruption of mainstream corporate attitudes seeped in, and they slowly bit by bit completely abandoned the "don't be evil" slogan.

My belief on Google specifically is probably somewhere between the two. BUT, if you had taken me back in time to ~2008, and offered me a button to press to make Google one or two standard deviations more "dogmatic", eg. give Richard Stallman permanent veto power over some key policies, I would immediately press it.

Why? Because a choice for one company is not a choice for the world, or even one country. Google existed and exists in the context of a technology industry generally drifting away from early idealistic don't-be-evil roots and toward greed for financial gain, totalizing visions of accelerated superintelligence, infiltration by sociopaths, and craven capitulation to (or worse, active participation in) government pressure for ideological control, surveillance and war. And so *one company* doing something different, positioning itself to be what George Bernard Shaw calls the Unreasonable Man, resisting the trend of the times, would have been better for freedom, balance of power and stability of society as a whole, than *all* large companies bending to dominant trends. This is a part of my version of pluralism.

This line of thinking is not just mine, but I also is not too far off from what Aya and others had in mind with the Mandate.

Now how does this all get to the role of the EF?

EF is not a "center of Ethereum", rather EF is "one node, with a defined purpose, alongside other nodes". We've always said that the EF should be the latter, but many in the Ethereum ecosystem (and even within the EF) wanted us to be the former. Now, we are taking action to ensure that we will be the latter.

This is particularly important because EF is a limited organization, with limited resources and limited organizational capacity. The EF has only ~0.16% of all ETH (less than many other individual ETH holders), whereas among other blockchains it's common for "the central foundation" to have 10-50%. Fiscally, the EF was originally designed to fulfill a limited work scope defined in the token sale docs and other pre-launch materials (building the chain software; getting through Frontier, Homestead, Metropolis, Serenity), which was fully completed in 2022; it was not designed to be an eternal steward.

And so today, the EF is choosing to use its remaining resources to pursue longevity over breadth (yes, this means we sell less ETH). The EF focuses *specifically* on those activities critical to the success of ethereum as a censorship/capture-resistant, open, private and secure system, that would not happen otherwise. This means making hard choices, and in some cases even activities that we highly approve of and people that we highly respect becoming outside of the EF. People of great technical talent, public respect and even alignment with the mission and CROPS being outside of the EF is in fact necessary if we want important tasks to be able to attract outside capital. This also means the EF taking opinionated stands culturally.

This is all intended in cooperation with all other parts of ethereum. We recognize that many other parts of the ethereum world highly respect CROPS and related values. But highly respecting is not the same as choosing to specialize and totally dedicate to a domain (Compare in a different domain: I think reducing animal cruelty is important, and I like vegan food, but am not full unconditional vegan myself)

EF is still in a transition period, and we expect its new long-term form to stabilize over the next few months. What are the guiding principles of this new form? Again, I am only one person, but I can give my answer from a technical perspective (there are also critical non-technical aspects).

At the core, *Ethereum must be impressive*. We are living in an age of highly intelligent AI and all kinds of other technological acceleration. "Status quo EVM, with a hard fork or two a year to optimize for short-term needs of users" is not interesting.

To some, "impressive" means: 250ms latency and 1M TPS. I think Ethereum trying to go that route is a mistake. Being as fast and as scalable as possible, and only a small epsilon more decentralized than the others, is a route to mediocrity, and if we try it we will lose.

I think Ethereum should scale. But I think Ethereum should strive the hardest to be deeply impressive in a different dimension: the CROPS dimension. This means things like:

* Provably bug-free Ethereum. This is a goal that all cybersecurity researchers would have thought is absurd and impossible, up until roughly 6 months ago. Now, it's on the cusp of being possible, thanks to AI-assisted formal verification. So we should be frontrunners in doing this.

* Available chain consensus. Ethereum is, and with lean consensus will cotninue to be, the ONLY chain that has both (i) traditional-BFT style properties that it's safe under asynchrony up to a high level of fault tolerance, and (ii) the bitcoin PoW-style property that under synchrony it's safe up to 49% attackers. As far as I can tell, literally no other chain has this or is planning for it; bitcoin goes for (ii) only and most other chains go for (i) only. Some will remember I fought hard for this, Unreasonably insisting that it is not OK for ethereum to rely on social consensus and hard forks to rescue ethereum from 34% of nodes going offline. It's OK for chains like hyperledger, bnb, solana, tempo, etc. It's not OK for bitcoin or ethereum or eg. zcash.

* Intermediary minimization. The fact that smart contract wallets, protocols like railgun, etc have to send transactions through intermediaries to get included onchain is honestly embarrassing, and it's a constant point of fragility. Hence the work on FOCIL and EIP-8141 (and 7701 and years of work before) to make transaction sending intermediary-minimized with public mempool and strong inclusion properties, in a truly general-purpose way, that covers not just eg. secp256r1, but also privacy protocols and much more. Kohaku is pushing intermediary minimization at the user layer, pulling Ethereum away from the dystopian status quo world where our wallets don't even verify the chain, send our private data out to a dozen third-party servers, and toward a brighter CROPS future.

Some of these goals are Unreasonable - maybe Ethereum would be "fine" getting only 50% of the way - what if we depend on intermediaries, but make it easy to switch? But going 50% of the way would not make Ethereum Deeply Impressive in the CROPS way. So we push for 100%.

Fortunately all these goals are compatible with high TPS, this is a major focus of research (esp. on scaling the state). Well-designed L2s can also help, especially L2s optimized for specific applications (eg. high-volume trading, privacy...). These goals are even compatible with significantly lower slot times, thanks to Raul's work on erasure-coded P2P, and many other optimizations.

The most high-value "product" of the ethereum blockchain, financially speaking, is ETH the asset. Ethereum secures $250 billion of ETH. The types of properties of Ethereum that I mentioned above are very good for ETH the asset. Nearly 90% of my net worth is in ETH, and most of the remainder is ~$40m of onchain fiat of which every dollar has already been allocated for some open-source biotech or software or hardware initiative. That said, there are aspects of supporting ETH the asset - *necessary* aspects even - that are outside the scope of the EF. This is where we need other heroes (some of whom hold more ETH than the EF does) to step in and help. EF has been recently thinking more about how it will relate to other such organizations, and give them needed initial support.

EF will be a smaller ship than in previous years, a more opinionated one - in some cases more opinionated in ways that might be difficult to comprehend - but a longer-lasting one, and one suited to making sure that ethereum brings something meaningful to the world. We are grateful to all those inside and outside the EF who are helping to make this happen.

[William Mougayar @wmougayar]

@rstormsf @laurashin Yup. You can’t beat standards once they are widely adopted.

[Roman Storm 🇺🇸 🌪️ @rstormsf]

Ethereum has been winning, is winning, and has never lost.

The most-used subprotocol or subchain by actual users is EVM-based. Every major wallet either supports ETH natively or is built entirely on EVM architecture.

Every chain that tried to compete failed to attract meaningful developer adoption. Algorand, Tezos, Polkadot - none crossed the threshold. Most “ETH killers” eventually found a single niche and settled: NEAR became a solid intent-based bridge layer, TRON became a USDT wallet. That’s not winning, that’s narrowing.

Cheap L2s never retained long-term users either. The pattern is always the same: airdrop announcement, usage spike, MEV bots flood in because gas is cheap, then silence. Base is a clean example of that cycle.

Ethereum sets the vision. Every fork and new proposal chases the EIP backlog because the entire infrastructure stack - Etherscan, Infura, Alchemy, Blockscout - standardized on EVM. Deviate from that standard and you’re on your own. That’s why deploying a forked contract to TRON is a nightmare, why Optimism shipped multiple broken hard forks chasing weird gas estimation edge cases, and why dapp developers refuse to write chains of if/else blocks just to handle behavioral differences across 10+ forked EVMs.

No one wants that complexity in their JavaScript. No wallet team wants to maintain it either.

Conform to EVM or get left behind. Ethereum didn’t enforce that rule - the ecosystem did.

[f1go.eth @FigoETH]

At this point think 99.9% of CT doesn't get the very basic fundamentals we have blockchain tech in the first place.

AN L1 IS NOT A COMPANY.

AND IS NOT VALUED ON REVENUE ALONE.

OTHERWISE BTC WOULD BE ZERO. YES ZERO.

Very simple yet very hard to grasp for most of CT.

[f1go.eth @FigoETH]

Think what Dankrad never understood, even as ETH researcher: ETH is not a company.

It's a global movement where many organisations and stakeholders play a crucial role.

EF. Etherealize. Conensys. ETH DATs. broader research community. client teams. validators. nodes. dapp teams. users. broader community.

An organization described by Dankrad fits for Tempo. Canton. Arc. Hyperliquid. And all other centralized companies / entities.

But not for ETH.

It coordinates by rough social consensus by all stakeholders, independent of one central entity.

And it needs not be saved.

It is in kickass mode all along (L1 soon having 10k+ tps, Base getting to stage 2, L2s already doing 75k+ tps, MegaETH exploring new chain designs, only L1 having state level security, privacy initiative going well etc.)

Think it's good that Dankrad is in his new place, hope Tempo has success as a company.

ETH will have it's success as foundation for onchain AI economy.

[Rick Dudley (afdudley.eth) @AFDudley0]

lol. Crazy bullshit. Ethereum is fine. I'm sure Dankrad is/was more of an insider than me, so his post here is some form of lobbying. Even if the public doesn't know the $1b of ETH holders that are doing exactly this already, Dankrad should be quite familiar with these entities.

[Peter Kaas @mepak]

👇👇👇👇

[Peter Kaas @mepak]

State of the world. 👇

https://t.co/KyPgI61uqb

[William Mougayar @wmougayar]

In light of today’s EF members resignations, time to re-read what I wrote a month ago.
& I expect further shrinkage …

[Matthew Green @matthew_d_green]

There’s been some reporting that Meta contributed an unfathomable sum to promote age verification laws globally. This is broadly true, but actual situation is a bit more complex. Figured it was worth an update.

[Sahil Bloom @SahilBloom]

Major life hack: Don't complain, ever. Nobody likes a complainer. They drain the energy of everyone around them. It's exhausting spending time around someone who constantly complains about things outside their control. If it’s within your control, go do something about it. If it’s not, you’re just wasting energy thinking about it. Complaining gives too much power to the thing. Take back that power.

[Paul Graham @paulg]

@dadiomov Because then you have to add card fees. Why drag Visa along with us into the future like a software virus?

[DBCrypto @DBCrypt0]

Scammers suing scammers is peak crypto

[Bill Hughes 🦊 @BillHughesDC]

Crypto is the world in daylight where all the bad activity is there to see if you look in the right direction.

Tradfi is the world at night and the Bank Policy Institute stands under a street lamp and says “see look how much better things are here” while pretending the horribles, patrolling the darkness just out of reach of the lamp light - unseen but perceivable, simply don’t exist.

[Hayden Adams 🦄 @haydenzadams]

I don’t usually argue about these things anymore but this is hilarious

“Permissioned / permissionless - who cares” is probably the most honest slogan from a permissioned chain in a while

[Erik Voorhees @ErikVoorhees]

Yes that's why there are no financial crises in tradfi

[Nym @nym]

What Age Verification does:

-Mass Surveillance
-Internet Censorship
-Creates a hackable honeypot of your personal data

What it does not do:

Make you a better parent

[⟠ @ryanberckmans]

Where's the capital in crypto? Mostly on Ethereum