What happens when a longtime Ethereum insider calls the ecosystem a “religion” that’s lost touch with reality? A critical look at Soleimani’s thread — and why it struck a nerve.
Table of Contents
Ethereum gets called out “again”
On Apr. 17, Ameen Soleimani posted a detailed thread on X that sharply critiqued what he sees as Ethereum’s (ETH) growing detachment from practical concerns.
Okay so I’m drunk, bored and on a plane, so I’m going to address this point by point. I’m doing this because I despise the part of the Ethereum religion that promotes euphemisms over reality, as in my view it gets in the way of real progress.
Why do you think I named it… https://t.co/Mu4hNVbDeb
— Ameen Soleimani (@ameensol) April 17, 2025
Soleimani’s comments were framed as a response to a values-oriented post by Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake, which had been endorsed and shared by co-founder Vitalik Buterin.
In his posts, Soleimani challenged what he described as Ethereum’s reliance on abstract ideals and aspirational messaging, arguing that these narratives often obscure the real challenges facing the network.
He expressed concern that the culture around Ethereum risks becoming too comfortable with vague slogans at the expense of accountability and grounded problem-solving.
Soleimani is not new to Ethereum, nor is he speaking from the sidelines. He is best known as the creator of MolochDAO, a decentralized funding collective launched in 2019 to support Ethereum infrastructure.
MolochDAO also distributed grants for Ethereum 2.0 research and contributed to resource coordination during the network’s transition to proof-of-stake.
His involvement in Ethereum dates back further. He co-founded SpankChain, an adult content platform built on Ethereum that explored use cases in direct crypto payments and censorship resistance.
He also backed RAI, a decentralized, non-pegged stablecoin developed by Reflexer Labs, and participated in public discussions around Tornado Cash, a privacy-focused protocol currently under legal scrutiny in both the U.S. and Europe.
Let’s examine the core arguments Soleimani laid out and evaluate how his concerns reflect deeper tensions within the Ethereum ecosystem.
Stablecoins on Ethereum
One of the more pointed issues raised in Soleimani’s post is Ethereum’s continued dependence on centralized stablecoins.
While Ethereum presents itself as a platform for decentralized finance, a large share of its day-to-day activity is still conducted through assets issued by private companies.
As of Apr. 18, stablecoins such as Tether (USDT) and USD Coin (USDC) account for a significant portion of Ethereum’s liquidity and trading volume. According to DeFiLlama, the combined value of USDT and USDC deployed across Ethereum exceeds $100 billion.
These tokens serve as core collateral in lending markets, key trading pairs on decentralized exchanges, and settlement mechanisms across a wide range of DeFi protocols. Their widespread integration has made them foundational to many applications built on Ethereum.
However, this level of dependence brings different trade-offs. Both USDT and USDC are issued by companies that operate under national regulatory regimes. Tether is managed by iFinex, while USDC is issued by Circle and governed through the Centre Consortium.
These issuers maintain fiat-denominated reserves, publish regular attestations, and possess the authority to freeze or blacklist wallet addresses.
While such powers are used sparingly, their existence introduces a form of counterparty risk that sits uneasily with Ethereum’s broader decentralization narrative.
At the protocol level, Ethereum remains open, permissionless, and resistant to censorship. But the tools most commonly used within its application layer rely on infrastructure that can be altered or restricted by centralized actors.
This distinction is important. It highlights how decentralization in Ethereum is not evenly distributed across all layers, especially in the context of financial instruments that are susceptible to regulatory oversight and issuer control.
Political neutrality and policy engagement
Another area of concern in Soleimani’s post is Ethereum’s evolving relationship with political systems. While the protocol is often described as apolitical and neutral, recent developments show that its broader ecosystem is increasingly interacting with legal frameworks and policy discussions across jurisdictions.
This shift does not alter Ethereum’s core design, which remains permissionless and open. However, it reflects a growing need for engagement with regulators, particularly as the network supports more capital, users, and applications.
Infrastructure tied to Ethereum — including validator operators, custodians, and development teams — frequently operates under national laws and is subject to local compliance requirements.
Many of these entities are based in jurisdictions with active enforcement regimes. As of April 2025, Ethernodes data indicates that over half of all active Ethereum nodes are hosted in countries like the U.S., Germany, and Singapore, where crypto-related legal obligations are well established.
The geographic distribution of these nodes gives Ethereum global reach, but also exposes it to varying degrees of regulatory oversight.
Meanwhile, on the global front, Ethereum Foundation members have taken part in policy discussions with governments in Europe, Asia, and Latin America.
Over the years, Vitalik Buterin has held meetings with public officials in Montenegro and Argentina to explore national approaches to crypto governance.
While these interactions remain informal, they suggest a deliberate effort to contribute to policy formation, without necessarily steering the protocol in any political direction.
In functional terms, this engagement is not unusual. As Ethereum becomes more embedded in real-world finance and infrastructure, the need for legal clarity increases. Protocol developers, node operators, and wallet providers often require stable regulatory environments to mitigate operational risks.
Meanwhile, policymakers increasingly seek technical input to inform emerging regulation. The result is a two-way exchange — policy shaped by protocol insight, and protocol development influenced by regulatory context.
Ethereum remains decentralized at the base layer and does not rely on state endorsement for its technical operation. Still, the individuals and entities building within its ecosystem often work within legal boundaries.
The result is not full detachment, but conditional independence — one where neutrality is preserved at the protocol level, even as engagement with political systems continues at the edges.
When ‘permissionless innovation’ meets the law
Soleimani’s thread also takes aim at the Ethereum community’s embrace of “permissionless innovation,” a principle rooted in the idea that anyone should be able to build without needing approval.
While this concept has driven much of Ethereum’s early growth, Soleimani argues that its consequences are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
One of the most prominent examples he cites is Tornado Cash, a privacy protocol launched via autonomous smart contracts on Ethereum.
In 2022, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctioned the protocol, alleging that it facilitated money laundering for criminal actors, including North Korea’s Lazarus Group.
The sanctions were followed by arrests. Roman Storm and Alexey Pertsev, two of Tornado Cash’s developers, were detained in the United States and the Netherlands.
Storm now faces charges related to money laundering, violations of international sanctions, and operating an unlicensed money services business — charges that carry a potential prison sentence of up to 45 years.
For Soleimani, the issue is not just the legal action itself, but how the Ethereum community has responded to it. Some defended the developers, while others leaned on the argument that “code is speech” and therefore beyond the reach of legal systems.
Soleimani views this assumption as misguided. In his view, relying on the neutrality of code to shield developers from responsibility ignores how financial technologies are regulated in practice.
He is especially critical of the belief that developers do not need legal support. In his post, he points to the legal teams and advocacy organizations that have submitted amicus briefs in defense of Roman Storm.
These briefs argue that writing and deploying open-source code should be protected under free speech, and that creators of decentralized tools should not be held liable for misuse by third parties.
While these positions have gained support within parts of the crypto industry, they remain legally uncertain.
This case has broader implications for Ethereum’s development model. The right to build remains intact at a technical level, but the legal risks tied to privacy tools and cross-border transactions are growing.
In Soleimani’s view, defending permissionless innovation now requires more than idealism. It demands legal foresight, active engagement, and a deeper understanding of the risks that come with building in a regulated world.
Does ETH need a price?
Soleimani also raises concerns about Ethereum’s reliance on the price of ETH to maintain network security. In his post, he revisits an earlier disagreement with Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake, who had previously suggested that ETH’s market price was not particularly important.
Soleimani pushed back by asking a direct question: if ETH were to lose its value, how would Ethereum continue to secure its network?
This is a fundamental issue within Ethereum’s current architecture. Since the network’s transition to proof-of-stake in 2022, Ethereum no longer uses miners. Instead, it relies on validators who stake ETH to verify transactions and keep the system operational.
The effectiveness of this model depends on both the amount of ETH being staked and the market value of the token itself.
If ETH’s price falls too low, the rewards for honest validation decrease, making it less attractive for participants to stake.
At the same time, the cost of attacking the network becomes cheaper. This dynamic weakens both the incentive to secure the network and the deterrent against malicious activity.
As of Apr. 18, ETH is trading around $1,570, reflecting a drop of over 52 percent from recent highs. According to data from Beaconcha.in, more than 34 million ETH is currently staked, representing roughly 28 percent of the total supply.
Soleimani’s argument is that proof-of-stake systems do not separate monetary value from security. ETH’s price is not just a market metric. It is a core part of how the network stays resilient.
Can Ethereum reconcile and move forward?
Soleimani closes his post with a question that extends beyond any single disagreement. Can Ethereum, as a system and a community, recognize its internal contradictions and still find a way to move forward?
Despite his strong criticism, he does not write off the network. Instead, he reflects on past moments where change did occur. For example, early debates around the importance of ETH’s price eventually led to the emergence of the “ultrasound money” narrative. He sees this as proof that the community is capable of adapting when it chooses to.
His hope is that similar shifts can happen again. The challenges facing Ethereum today are different in nature — they involve legal risk, coordination problems, and questions about how power is distributed. These are not technical issues alone. They require a broader view of how the protocol fits into the world around it.
Whether Ethereum can reconcile these tensions depends on how it responds to them. That includes being realistic about the risks developers face, the tools it depends on, and the systems it interacts with. It also means accepting that decentralization comes with trade-offs that must be managed, not ignored.
