During this time, whether it's the comments at the end of our articles or discussions on Twitter, concerns about the future of Ethereum have been a highly focused topic for many holders.
As for whether Ethereum's future is promising, my judgment criteria remain a few key points:
- Whether it is striving for decentralization to the utmost in operation (note that it is "in operation" rather than "in development and leadership")
- Whether there is a strong and trustworthy team
- Whether there is a robust community and ecosystem
So, using these criteria to evaluate Ethereum now, has it been weakened?
There is a great article on Twitter (@sdcrypto123) that expresses main points which basically represent my views. In addition, this article mentions some issues I had never noticed before.
The link to this article is at the end.
Today, I would like to share some viewpoints and details from this article.
"I still don't feel that the Ethereum community has done anything absolutely wrong. Ethereum has put a lot of development effort/community support into decentralization, anti-censorship, and privacy, which may seem unimportant in the short term, but once other chains experience security issues or a certain group is controlled by a consortium and lacks neutrality, people will look back and realize the importance of decentralization and anti-censorship."
This viewpoint is one I 100% agree with and have no doubt about, and it is a belief I have held strongly for many years.
If we believe that the predecessors of the crypto ecosystem have devoted countless efforts, even their lives, to create a world for future generations, a world that strives to eliminate the evils, censorship, and interference of centralized institutions, then since Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin, only Ethereum has continued to move in this direction.
In the latest Ethereum roadmap, Vitalik proposed lowering the threshold for validation nodes, further promoting decentralization—Ethereum has never compromised on decentralization, which is my greatest comfort and core concern.
Decentralization and anti-censorship must not waver in the main chain (L1); only in this way can the platform ensure sufficient neutrality—both good and bad actors can use this platform equally and indiscriminately.
Layer 2 (L2), Layer 3 (L3), and even multi-layer expansions do not need to adhere to this. They can be centralized and even have censorship functions (of course, it would be better if they could also be decentralized). They can do this because the main chain they rely on has achieved sufficient decentralization.
"Trust is not about believing that it won't make mistakes or fall behind; trust is about believing that it has a strong ability to correct mistakes after falling behind and that it has a very strong core value system that can guide it to patiently, long-term, and resiliently move forward. Values are intangible, but without values, it is easy to abandon principles and continuous development at critical moments. Making money is hard to become a core element for a project to continuously progress and move forward because there will always be better ways to make money."
This viewpoint summarizes the importance of values very well.
Every person, every project, and every company will inevitably encounter a moment of darkness in their development. At that moment, with no experience to draw from, no external forces to seek help from, and no resources to utilize, the choice of which path to take and which direction to go relies on values.
Values can provide a sixth sense in dark moments, allowing us to penetrate the fog, see the light through the darkness, withstand pressure, resist temptation, and move in the right direction.
Vitalik has never wavered in his values. Throughout past developments, regardless of external disturbances, doubts, or temptations, he has always adhered to decentralization and anti-censorship. Because of this, I believe in him and in the future of Ethereum.
I hope that Vitalik and the future Ethereum team can continue to uphold this value system and maintain this original intention.
"Uniswap and Jupiter's approaches are completely opposite. In 2021, when animal coins were prevalent, Uniswap hid/block various Memecoins in the token search list, while Jupiter actively guided and even created the first multi-participant Memecoin in the Solana ecosystem, called Wen."
"You can also see the difference in wallets. Phantom actively adds popular Memecoins to the list or arranges them in its built-in swap, while MetaMask hides them and requires users to add them themselves. It also has never prominently indicated the most popular tokens on the current network."
Seeing this detail surprised me.
Previously, I was unaware that Uniswap and MetaMask deliberately hid and suppressed meme coins in their apps.
Although I am not obsessed with meme coins, I do not oppose them. I have participated in several meme coins because I can feel the joy and pleasure in the process.
So I hold an open attitude towards meme coins.
In this market cycle, I often have a question in my mind:
Why are so many meme coins launched on Solana rather than the Ethereum ecosystem?
If Ethereum's fees are too high for meme coins, many Ethereum L2 fees are now low enough; why are there no even slightly famous meme coins in that ecosystem?
If the details described above are true, then as the main battlefield for meme coins, DEX and wallets have deliberately obstructed and suppressed them, and their actions have already undermined the characteristic of "anti-censorship."
In my view, the core of decentralization and anti-censorship is:
The tools themselves are neutral, and both good and bad actors can use them. The bad actors who use the tools for evil should be punished, not those who are subjectively judged as good or bad beforehand to decide whether to provide them with tools.
The deliberate suppression of meme coins by Uniswap and MetaMask is as unreasonable and absurd as the U.S. Department of Commerce arbitrarily blacklisting addresses related to Tornado Cash.
Fortunately, the U.S. judicial system has curbed such arbitrary actions by the U.S. government.
If a centralized world can achieve this, I believe a decentralized world is even more capable of doing so.
These details also illustrate how important it is for us to insist on decentralization.
If an ecosystem has apps that engage in censorship, it must also have apps that resist censorship; we cannot allow censoring apps to monopolize the development of the ecosystem, and users must have the freedom of choice.
Only when users have the freedom of choice can the development of the ecosystem have vitality and creativity.
If an ecosystem only allows one choice, such an ecosystem will ultimately become rigid.
From another perspective, in the crypto ecosystem, it is precisely because of the competition among multiple blockchains, the "decentralization" of this ecosystem, and the popularity of Solana in meme coins that we see that there are still such censorship and suppression in the core projects of the Ethereum ecosystem.
These are some of the main points from this article.
In addition to this article, there are also some controversial tweets from Vitalik and discussions about the Ethereum Foundation circulating online.
I believe that Vitalik and his team can solve these problems.
After all, compared to the DAO incident in 2016, the issues presented by Ethereum's current stagnation are much easier to resolve.
Returning to the three criteria I listed above, I believe that Ethereum's decentralization is currently not an issue, the team and ecosystem are experiencing some impacts, but there is still an opportunity for recovery.
I still believe that this young founder can lead his team and Ethereum out of the current predicament and solve the problems encountered in development.
I believe he can "Make Ethereum Great Again."
Reference link:
https://x.com/sdcrypto123/status/1882048078938869803
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。
