The Ethereum Foundation’s recent wave of departures is reigniting an old debate inside the crypto industry: what is going on with the main steward behind Ethereum, and why does the community know so little about what is happening behind the scenes?
Days after several high-profile figures shared they had left the Ethereum Foundation (EF) amid an internal shakeup, community members on X began openly questioning the organization’s direction, leadership structure and communication practices.
“What’s happening at the EF?” crypto commentator Andy, the co-founder of the Rollup podcast, wrote in a post on X.
Others echoed similar frustrations, arguing the EF has failed to clearly explain the rationale behind the changes or how responsibilities inside the organization are evolving.
“Why can’t the EF just be transparent about things,” wrote Joon Ian Wong, a prominent figure in the crypto community events space.
The criticism reflects a longstanding tension surrounding the Ethereum Foundation, the Switzerland-based nonprofit that plays a central role in funding research, coordinating upgrades and stewarding development of the world’s second-largest blockchain by market capitalization.
Unlike traditional corporations, the EF has historically operated with a loose and decentralized structure. Some have argued that the model preserves Ethereum’s neutrality and prevents excessive concentration of power. Others however say the approach has increasingly clashed with the expectations of an ecosystem now underpinning hundreds of billions of dollars in assets and decentralized financial activity.
The latest departures appear to have reopened that debate. CoinDesk reached out to a representative at the foundation for a request for comment, and had not heard back at the time of publication.
Read more: The Ethereum Foundation is facing a wave of high-profile departures as its internal shakeup deepens
The Ethereum Foundation attempted to more clearly define its role through a new public mandate in March, emphasizing Ethereum’s long-term resilience, credible neutrality and support for core infrastructure development. The statement was widely viewed as an effort to clarify the EF’s priorities amid growing scrutiny over the organization’s influence within the ecosystem.
Some community members argued the mandate failed to answer deeper questions about decision-making inside the foundation and how leadership changes were being handled.
The concerns intensified, especially given that the new co-executive director, Tomasz Stańczak, shared in February that he was leaving his role. His exit sparked speculation that the foundation was undergoing a broader internal realignment.
Earlier last year, ahead of former executive director Aya Miyaguchi’s transition away from the foundation, community members publicly questioned the EF’s leadership and broader strategic direction. Community members criticized the organization’s communication style and called for clearer accountability from leadership as frustration mounted among parts of the ecosystem.
The backlash that followed led to Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin publicly defending the foundation and its leadership structure.
Buterin argued that many critics misunderstood the EF’s role within Ethereum, emphasizing that the organization was designed to support the ecosystem rather than directly control it. He also pushed back against what he described as increasingly toxic discourse directed at foundation leadership.
Still, the criticism exposed deeper anxieties inside the Ethereum world about whether the network’s most influential institution has adapted quickly enough at a time when competition among blockchains has accelerated.
The debate ultimately highlights a contradiction that has shadowed Ethereum for years: while the blockchain champions decentralization as a core principle, many community members increasingly want more visibility into the decision-making of the institution that remains most closely associated with its development.
For now, the Ethereum Foundation has not publicly detailed the full scope of the recent departures or whether additional organizational changes are planned. But the reaction online suggests the questions surrounding the EF’s governance and transparency are unlikely to fade anytime soon.
