Author: Péter Szilágyi

Compiler: GaryMa Wu Says Blockchain

Background

Former Ethereum core developer and Geth maintainer Péter Szilágyi recently publicly disclosed a letter he sent to the leadership of the Ethereum Foundation (EF) a year and a half ago, expressing his disappointment with the foundation and pointing out serious issues within, such as significant pay inequity, conflicts of interest, and concentration of power.

It is understood that Péter Szilágyi has been with the Ethereum Foundation since 2016, and he claims he was fired in November after discovering a "secret second Geth team." At that time, he announced a leave of absence, but in reality, he was having a one-on-one conversation with Josh Stark about this team and was dismissed by the foundation within 24 hours, with the reason being that "threatening to resign is unacceptable and undermines team morale." This "secret" team may refer to the roll-up Geth announced publicly in October but was not released through official channels. Additionally, funding issues have surfaced, as Ethereum Foundation co-executive director Tomasz K. Stańczak sought to significantly cut the salaries of Geth developers. Szilagyi also mentioned that the foundation had attempted multiple times to spin off Geth into a private entity, although Stańczak claimed there were no such plans. Szilagyi had previously exploded in frustration over workload and salary issues, challenging the patience of some investors. The Geth client has issues such as being unable to trim storage as flexibly as Bitcoin and Ethereum L2 clients, having storage requirements as high as 700GB without technical justification, and potentially affecting decentralization. Maintaining two clients also causes additional inefficiencies and complexities. The foundation has repeatedly invited Szilagyi to return, but he has refused, demanding an apology, which was not granted.

Below is the full translation of the letter:

Hello everyone,

Over the past few years, I have often felt uneasy about Ethereum, my role in the Geth team, my role in the Ethereum Foundation (EF), and even my position within the entire Ethereum ecosystem. (No, I am not announcing my resignation now, at least not at this moment.) I occasionally discuss various troubling matters with Felix, Martin, and sometimes with Josh. These conversations always provide me with temporary relief, but I always return to that initial state. I even realized that I couldn't clearly articulate what my real issues were (thanks to Felix for pointing this out). So, I decided to take some time to organize my thoughts, and this article is essentially a summary of those reflections (or at least I hope it can become such a summary; I have just started writing).

Before saying anything negative about Ethereum or any specific person, I want to emphasize one point: I have always believed that Ethereum is a force for positive change in the world and that the foundation is a positive driving force behind that power (even though I often criticize its decisions as being overly naive). For me, working for Ethereum and the foundation has been a privilege and one of the brightest moments of my career. I am grateful for everything I have gained on economic, personal, and professional levels; at the same time, I am often surprised that I have been able to get away with doing those embarrassing things (sometimes publicly). I am deeply thankful for that. Please do not interpret all the criticisms that follow as a doomsday prophecy for Ethereum's fate, but rather as my personal views on "why Ethereum has failed for me."

My main issue with Ethereum at the moment is that I feel a strong dissonance between how people publicly declare my role and how they actually treat me behind the scenes. More often than not, the foundation portrays me as a "leadership figure" in the ecosystem; yet whenever there is a public conflict, the foundation's stance is usually that "everything is going according to plan" because Ethereum "values different perspectives." I want to challenge this assertion—Dankrad elegantly summarized this issue in a private message: I merely have a "perceived leadership role" (I should envy his eloquence).

In my view, the reason I am seen as a "leader" is simply because I have maintained Geth's public image over the past nine years; because I have stood firm in the face of some less-than-honest participants; and because I have dared to publicly question those in power, sometimes even within the foundation. People love to watch the drama, and what better way to showcase "fairness" than to have "someone from within the foundation openly oppose the foundation"? But for me personally, each of these outbursts drains 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 the conflicts of interest of Justin/Dankrad, Erigon's Giulio immediately jumped in to defend them, saying, "There’s nothing wrong with accepting the highest bidder."

Regardless of the facts, I have long felt like a "useful fool" in the eyes of the foundation—a lose-lose situation for me. I could choose to remain silent, watching Geth and its value trampled upon while allowing those big players to reshape the protocol at will; or I could stand up and resist, with each statement damaging my reputation because it would prevent certain individuals from profiting off Ethereum. No matter how I choose, the outcome is the same: Geth (which is to say, I) will ultimately be removed from the equation. Of course, I could also "flip the table" and exit directly—the result would be the same, just quicker. Good or bad, I believe the foundation bears significant responsibility for this: from promoting client diversity to designing consensus penalty mechanisms, to allowing influential researchers to advocate for those "dirty means but agreeable directions" new clients.

Although we are one of the earliest teams in the entire ecosystem (besides Vitalik himself), I have not felt much gratitude for our perseverance. The sentiment from Twitter reflects this well: "Thank you for helping us build the empire; now please let those who can make money take over." This is the first reason I believe Ethereum has "failed" for me: we originally aspired to create great things, but as long as there is enough money on the table, we will unhesitatingly abandon our principles.

This leads to my second pain point in Ethereum: the opposition between laborers and speculators. From the beginning, working at the Ethereum Foundation has meant making poor financial decisions. Since I initiated an "internal reform" two years ago, the salary situation for the Geth team has improved somewhat (for the employees). But let's look at the numbers: in my first six years at Ethereum—from when ETH's market cap went from zero to $450 billion—my total compensation was $625,000 (before tax, total, over six years, with no incentives). This is the true picture of being a "laborer" at the Ethereum Foundation. Geth's financial situation is better now, but I am sure that other positions in the foundation (such as operations, administration, and even research) are still significantly lower. This situation is a breeding ground for conflicts of interest and protocol capture.

Almost all early employees of the foundation have long since left, as that was the only way to align their income with their contributions. Those who remain in the foundation are instead being exploited by it—because these people "are here out of conviction, not for money." In Vitalik's words: "If no one complains about their salary being too low, then the salary is too high." I believe this is one of the most serious failures of the foundation's leadership. The foundation's deliberate structure of keeping salary information confidential further convinces me—even if this was initially unintentional, the foundation has now become entirely reliant on this structure.

Since Geth's financial situation has improved now, why do I still bring this up? Because the foundation is actually laying the groundwork for the capture of the protocol. By systematically suppressing the compensation of those who genuinely care about the protocol, EF forces the most trustworthy individuals to seek compensation elsewhere. I believe that Justin and Dankrad's recent consulting positions are blatant conflicts of interest and potential protocol capture, and they themselves are unreasonably downplaying the risks—yes, I truly believe that. But is it unreasonable for them to accept money? No. They are merely reaping the consequences of what the foundation has sown. The devil is out of the bottle.

The foundation has deprived every employee of "life-changing wealth" over the past decade, and any remedial action now is meaningless. The foundation has been blinded by its endless financial reserves, and Vitalik's personal wealth has made him even more detached from reality, to the point that they have never considered: the people who work for them also wish to have the same comfortable lives. No one opposes the founders reaping the rewards of their success, but the foundation—under Vitalik's leadership—has gone to great lengths to avoid fairly compensating its employees. This is the second reason Ethereum has "failed" for me: the foundation has placed the protocol at risk of capture, not out of malice, but stemming from a "subtractive" idealism—a naive belief disconnected from reality that people do not care about money.

Next, let's talk about Ethereum's "high-end players." I have great respect for Vitalik, but he has become a victim of his own success. Whether he likes it or not, he has been—and still is—deciding what will succeed in Ethereum and what will not. His attention, the research directions he guides, his donations and investments, almost determine which projects can succeed (with a very high probability). His opinions also directly define what is "permitted" in the ecosystem and what is not. In other words, the survival rule in the gray area is: make Vitalik feel "okay." Ethereum may be decentralized, but Vitalik has absolute indirect control over it.

This in itself may not be a problem, but over the past decade, the entire ecosystem has exploited this phenomenon. In the early days of the foundation, founders and early holders vied for power and influence. Later, meeting participants also realized that the key to success lay with Vitalik, so everyone worked hard to "contain" him. Ultimately, this evolved into a small core circle of "Ethereum thought leaders"—those 5 to 10 individuals who almost invest in or advise all projects. Nowadays, to succeed, you just need to get a nod from those few core figures (or Vitalik himself) (for example: Farcaster is a case in point).

At this point, the problem is no longer Vitalik himself, but we have indeed formed a "ruling elite circle" within Ethereum. New projects no longer raise funds publicly but instead go directly to those 5-10 familiar faces for investment or advisory positions. Everyone understands: if you can get Bankless to invest, they will sing praises on their podcast; if you can invite researchers to be advisors, you can not only solve technical issues but also reduce friction risks with the Ethereum mainnet. The key in the gray area is: ensure those 5 people do not oppose. Looking at all new projects, you will see the same group of people, mutually boosting each other; zooming out a bit, you can also see the same 1-3 venture capital firms behind them.

This is the third reason I believe Ethereum has "failed" for me: we originally wanted to create a world of equality, but now the most successful projects are supported by the same 5-10 individuals, who are backed by the same few venture capital firms. All power is concentrated within Vitalik's circle of friends. The direction of Ethereum's development ultimately depends on your relationship with Vitalik. It's quite simple: people are always more lenient towards friends than outsiders—so to succeed, you need to befriend the "kingmakers." I choose to keep my distance because I find it disgusting to make friends for money; yet, I feel deep pain—because this is the reality of our "trustless little empire."

As for where all of this will lead us? I really don't know. I believe Ethereum is beyond repair. I see no reversible path. I feel that the foundation's loyalty is irretrievably lost. I think Vitalik—despite his good intentions—has created a ruling class that will never relinquish power. You either go with the flow or get marginalized (at least they will pay you well). As for Geth, I feel that we have been seen as a "problem" in the grand scheme of Ethereum—and I am at the center of this problem—so I see no bright prospects for continuing the struggle.

Over the years, I have turned down many crazy high-paying offers just to stay true to Ethereum. This has always been the "right mindset" that the foundation promotes. However, the entire Ethereum ecosystem has now unanimously decided: "This is just business." I cannot accept this mindset. I also doubt whether I could remain in this ecosystem if I left Ethereum or the foundation. So, I am currently caught between two difficult choices. Let's wait and see how the future unfolds.

With my sincerest wishes,

Peter

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。