This is a segment from the 0xResearch newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe.
Overshadowed by this weekend’s Trump meme mania, the ongoing debates surrounding Ethereum’s future have reached fever pitch. The public discussion highlights divides between parts of the community and the Ethereum Foundation (EF). Debates touch on governance, the network’s scalability roadmap and long-term vision.
One key area of debate is the governance of the EF. Critics argue that the EF’s internal structure may not be suitable for the current era. Despite its mission to decentralize, the foundation’s current centralized decision-making invites critiques of its responsiveness to competitive threats and evolving narratives.
Ironically, much of the strident criticism against current executive director Aya Miyaguchi stems from a mistranslation of comments she made in a Japanese interview, which has caused considerable misunderstanding and misrepresentation of her views.
Vitalik Buterin himself and other community members have called attention to the issue, emphasizing the distinction between the original Japanese article and the version promulgated on Crypto Twitter — which wrongly claimed Miyaguchi said “competing and winning” are values antithetical to Ethereum culture. (They are not.)
The mistranslation is so blatant, it’s hard to imagine it wasn’t intentional. These errors in translation have fueled online bullying, which has continued despite the clarification.
Some commentary has grown toxic enough to spook core devs, with pseudonymous Prysm developer Potuz commenting on the broader sentiment: “Reading twitter these last few days has made me feel that either I should just log off and keep coding or leave the space altogether.”
How best to articulate Ethereum’s core mission is another sore spot. On one side, those who emphasize Ethereum as a settlement layer argue that a strong monetary premium is essential for network security. On the other side, voices like Martin Koeppelmann advocate for positioning Ethereum as a “world computer,” with a focus on transaction capacity and total fees as the main indicators of success. Such voices view ETH as “money” secondarily.
Ethereum’s scalability plan via rollups continues to be questioned. We’re seeing a fresh batch of calls for more ambitious strategies to scale Ethereum mainnet — this time from within the EF itself.
“If Ethereum wants to win, we need to be ambitious,” Dankrad Feist wrote Monday on X.
Achieving bandwidth goals by 2026 is crucial, he argued. “We need to get to our current target of one megabyte per second in 1–2 years rather than 5, and then KEEP GOING.”
That the status quo won’t cut it seems to be the emerging consensus.
Read the full article here
