Written by: Ethereum Foundation Global Policy Strategy Team, @Ethereum
Translated by: Gandalf, Techub News
The current global transformation pattern clearly indicates that we urgently need a shared, neutral digital public infrastructure that is not controlled by any single centralized entity. Ethereum, being an open and programmable network, is designed to operate independently without relying on any single participant. This network is built to meet such needs.
Today, the Ethereum Foundation's Global Policy Strategy (GPS) team released the report "Ethereum for Governments and Institutions." This report targets leaders in the public sector and institutions facing policy and deployment decisions, positioning itself as a non-technical introductory guide that systematically outlines the principles of Ethereum's operation, its governance structure, a comparative analysis with mainstream alternatives, and the core scenarios where it has been applied. This article aims to promote the report and address the core questions driving its preparation. These questions cover why digital infrastructure must remain neutral and why Ethereum is suited to play this role.
Why We Need Neutral Digital Infrastructure
Digital systems are a foundational support of the modern economy, encompassing many fields including payment clearing, identity verification, asset registration, and institutional notarization. Existing system patterns exhibit fragmentation and proprietary characteristics, dominated by a few intermediaries.
The use of such systems is prone to creating single points of failure and highly concentrating operational risks. Once a cyber attack, regional disruption, or natural disaster impacts a centralized operator, the entire system can be incapacitated in an instant.
Using these systems also means having to trust intermediaries and passively accept their existing rules. Whether voluntarily or under external pressure, these intermediaries retain the unilateral power to exclude participants and modify established rules. If an operator defaults, what will the consequences be? How will conflicts regarding rule applicability be addressed?
As more value migrates online, the aforementioned risks multiply. Meanwhile, the cracks in digital infrastructure are continuing to widen. In recent years, cloud outages have caused government service paralysis, the financial system has faced cross-border weaponization, and large identity service providers have experienced breaches. Such breaches severely invade personal privacy and deal a heavy blow to business confidence. These are not isolated aberrations. Such phenomena are a fundamental reality inherent in infrastructures reliant on centralized control models.
Hoping to patch the currently fragile infrastructure with better rules does not address these issues fundamentally. The only real solution lies in credible neutral infrastructure. In such infrastructure, the protocol itself executes the rules, and the enforcement process is not subject to human discretion or external pressures. Ethereum is precisely the network built to provide such infrastructure.
This report is a comprehensive introductory guide to Ethereum and the broader blockchain space, specially prepared for governments and institutions evaluating digital infrastructure. The report provides an objective and rigorous analytical framework, which is needed for high-risk decision-making.
Blockchain Evaluation Framework Based on Objective Indicators
Blockchain systems exhibit fundamental differences in technical architecture and governance structure, distributed across a wide spectrum. At one end of the spectrum are truly decentralized protocols. These types of protocols possess open, ownerless attributes, functioning like other public infrastructures. They can be used by anyone, yet no one can control them. This is akin to the nature of the internet. At the other end of the spectrum are blockchain networks that are essentially enterprise products. Such products are controlled by a single company or a small group of insiders who establish the rules. They may face failure risks similar to businesses. If problems arise, insiders must bear corresponding responsibilities. This distinction has profound implications for policymakers and regulators. The underlying structure of the blockchain will determine whether it can serve as a credible neutral public infrastructure in the decades to come or must be seen as an enterprise-grade product with inherent accountability mechanisms and systemic risks.
One of the core objectives of this report is to educate governments and institutions on the key factors to consider before making policy decisions or deploying products on the chain. A recent report from OpenZeppelin revealed several key differences among different Layer 1 (L1) blockchains. Below are the core findings of that report regarding Ethereum (unless otherwise specified, the data is as of March 2026):
Runtime and network resilience: Since its mainnet launch in 2015, Ethereum has operated continuously and has undergone extensive real-world testing. All other blockchains covered in the report have experienced one to seven network interruptions, with one mainstream blockchain experiencing a shutdown lasting up to 19 hours in 2023. Even centralized internet services frequently face outages. What sets Ethereum apart is that it has never experienced downtime.
Economic security model: According to the data available when the OpenZeppelin report was published, Ethereum is secured by approximately $76 billion worth of staked ETH. The cost of fraudulent attacks on transaction finality is around $50.7 billion, and attackers would also face automatic on-chain forfeiture mechanisms as a penalty. The equivalent attack costs for other blockchains are significantly lower, with many networks further lacking this deterrent of automatic on-chain forfeiture.
Validator decentralization design: Ethereum validators are distributed across continents and different jurisdictions, with no single country dominating. This broad distribution is partly due to low participation thresholds. With just one consumer-grade computer and 32 ETH, anyone can become a validator. This threshold is much more lenient than that of all other blockchains reviewed in the report. In contrast, many other L1 blockchains require enterprise-grade infrastructure, deep Linux operational expertise, and near-perfect online rates. Such requirements concentrate validation power in wealthy operational entities. Ultimately, Ethereum's pool of validators is more diverse, decentralized, and harder to manipulate than any other blockchain covered in the report.
Diversity of software and infrastructure: Ethereum nodes and validators are distributed across multiple cloud service providers and physical servers, with no single provider dominating. The community maintains more than five independent client software implementations. These clients are developed by different teams using different programming languages. This development model significantly reduces the risk of a single vulnerability or failure causing a complete network shutdown. Other L1 blockchains covered in the report do not achieve this level of diversity, most of which rely on a single client software to operate. This practice poses a major risk of network paralysis.
Counterparty risk landscape: Given that Ethereum has no operational entities, building applications on it does not introduce new counterparties. No single entity can unilaterally change rules, restrict access, re-prioritize the network for commercial interests, or shut it down. The system's integrity does not rely on the continued solvency, goodwill, or strategic interests of any single entity. Most other L1 blockchains fail this test. For example, one blockchain mentioned in the OpenZeppelin report has its validating ecosystem directly shaped by a foundation behind it. Other blockchains have corporate entities exerting substantive influence over the chain. The OpenZeppelin report notes that in one case, a company behind a mainstream blockchain controls about 42% of the token supply. This company also extends such control to validator selection and node list management. Such counterparty risks are core risks that institutions typically must disclose, argue, and manage.
Ecosystem maturity, developer base, and forward-looking roadmap: The technical standards established by Ethereum have become the underlying basis upon which the entire blockchain ecosystem is built. For governments and institutions, this means building on universal standards. Such standards provide unparalleled interoperability and greater flexibility for cross-network migration when necessary. This also means access to a complete ecosystem composed of mature tools, code libraries, auditing firms, and compliance service providers. The Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) ecosystem boasts over 11,000 developers, far exceeding those of other chains covered in the report. This depth is reflected in the forward-looking research work of the Ethereum community. Relevant work includes a set of post-quantum security roadmaps built into the core protocol, rather than provided as add-ons. This roadmap is supported by specialized research teams and publicly available cryptographic prize funds.
The Strategic Implications for Governments and Institutions
Public opinion often simplifies Ethereum to a mere financial tool. This characterization evidently fails to reflect Ethereum's actual capabilities. The essence of Ethereum is an open, neutral, and programmable infrastructure layer suitable for any systems requiring multi-party coordination without trusted intermediaries. Relevant application scenarios cover a wide range including trade settlement, asset issuance, identity verification, registration systems, notarization, public records, supply chain traceability, and tokenization markets.
Many of the above use cases have been validated in practice. For example, Bhutan and Buenos Aires have built decentralized digital identity systems on Ethereum. Users thus gain control over their identity sovereignty and autonomously decide the scope of data to share externally. Ethereum-related infrastructure is also applied in land registration management. In India, such infrastructure is being used to curb fraud and ensure the immutability of public records.
For many other government and institutional stakeholders, there are currently two urgent priorities. (1) To choose a neutral foundational infrastructure that allows for coordination with others while retaining their sovereignty. (2) To explore governance pathways for such infrastructure. This new type of infrastructure is difficult to be simply integrated into existing regulatory frameworks. These decisions are interconnected and mutually influential. A truly neutral network has no capturable or coercible controlling party. Such networks support a unique pattern of deployment in the public sector. Therefore, their regulatory pathways should also differ from networks that carry such risks.
"Ethereum Basics for Governments and Institutions" is our specialized attempt to provide reference for these decisions. We are committed to helping stakeholders deepen their understanding of the Ethereum blockchain and clarify its differences from other infrastructures, including existing intermediary systems and other blockchain networks.
The document is now online.
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。
