Source: Tako
On the evening of February 19, Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin held a flash text AMA in the "Flash Interview Circle" within the Tako App. This article categorizes and organizes all AMA content based on the topics discussed. The topics include:
The past and future of Ethereum
About Layer 2 networks
Organizational issues of Ethereum
Decentralized social, privacy, and governance
Some of Vitalik's worldviews
The Past and Future of Ethereum
Q1
Mable:
I want to ask a common question, but I think it's meaningful to ask it again in February 2025.
In your opinion, should today's Ethereum be closer to being like Bitcoin or more like a world computer?
You mentioned in a previous X post that many people who hold a negative view of ETH are actually short-term speculators, and their frustration hardly brings any constructive help to the ETH community. However, there are also many in the OG ETH-Maxi camp who loudly promote the idea that "ETH is money" (for example, Bankless, the largest Ethereum maximalist media), and compare ETH with BTC, believing it to be another competitive form of digital currency (possibly even a better form of currency).
What is the ultimate narrative you envision for the future adoption of ETH?
Vitalik:
I think these two ways of thinking are compatible.
If you need to distinguish which blockchains are "truly decentralized," you can use a relatively simple test: if its foundation disappears, can the chain survive? I feel that only Bitcoin and Ethereum can clearly answer: of course, they can. Most of Ethereum's development is outside the foundation, and the client teams have independent business models. Many researchers are not in the foundation, and almost all activities, except for Devcon, are independent.
Reaching this stage is difficult. Ethereum was not like this five years ago.
Giving up these advantages in pursuit of TPS (transactions per second) is a big mistake because there will always be new chains emerging with even higher TPS than yours. However, decentralization and resilience are valuable, and few blockchains possess them.
These characteristics are conducive to creating a digital currency with long-term value and also beneficial for a good world computer. But the world computer also needs to solve the scalability issue. "World computer" does not mean "a computer that can support every application in the world simultaneously," but rather "a place where the world's applications can interact with each other." High-performance computing can be placed on L2, which is fine. But this role still requires L1 to have sufficient scale; the specific details can be found in a recent article.
ETH is a digital asset suitable for the applications of the world (including finance and others, like ENS, etc.). ETH does not need every transaction to be on L1, but it needs to have enough throughput to allow anyone wanting to use L1 to do so at least occasionally.
So these two directions are also compatible: helping Ethereum become a better world computer also enhances ETH as a better digital currency.
Q2
Mable:
Is encouraging more developers to join Ethereum, incentivizing and retaining existing developers (compared to some new L1 or even L2 with relatively generous developer incentives, Ethereum certainly has a more complex situation), currently a priority?
In accelerating network decentralization, improving scalability, and exploring more application scenarios, which of these three do you think is currently the highest priority for Ethereum?
Vitalik:
Here we actually need to find ways to solve all three problems simultaneously:
Attract more developers
Encourage developers to create applications that are more open-source, secure, compliant with public standards, and have long-term value, etc.
In solving (2), avoid the ecosystem becoming a closed circle (the phenomenon of "we are on the same front because we are good friends of developers")
So I recently said that Ethereum's alignment should be a technical game, not a social game.
I want to emphasize this issue because I feel that the most pressing centralization problems in decentralization are often not L1 issues, but rather L2, wallets, or application issues. So the entire ecosystem needs to work together to expand and attract new developers while making progress in these decentralized and trustless aspects.
We can help achieve this in several ways:
Education, making it easier for developers to understand what blockchain is for, what should be on-chain, what should not be on-chain, what to care about in the blockchain space, etc.
If some blockchain-specific technical aspects are too difficult for application developers, the foundation can do it itself, making it easier for developers to integrate. For example, zk programming languages, and a16z's Helios, etc.
Provide clear standards for developers. For example, if you are developing an Ethereum client, there are many tests; you can run the tests yourself to see if your client can pass. If you are developing L2, there are frameworks like L2Beat's stage 1, stage 2, etc. This should also apply to zk applications, wallets, etc.
Q3
How do you think the success of Ethereum should ultimately be measured—by technological breakthroughs, the breadth of user adoption, or its impact on social equality and power distribution?
Vitalik:
Currently, the breadth of user adoption is the most important. There have already been technological breakthroughs: zero-knowledge proofs, consensus algorithms, virtual machines, etc. User adoption has occurred, but the most attention-grabbing adoptions are those memecoins that drop 97% in a day (I do not oppose all memecoins; I was an early buyer of DOGE, but the current ones are a completely different type).
I think the applications we need should pass three tests:
Can you imagine yourself or someone you know actually willing to use it? That is, the difference between something theoretically interesting (decentralized Uber! Awesome!) and something that is actually usable.
Can it make money? If it can't make money, it's hard to achieve the highest quality standards for the application.
If you are neither a user nor an investor, would you be happy to know that this thing exists? That is, does it have real value for the world?
Passing all three is difficult; possibly only payment and value storage applications have passed, and maybe prediction markets have passed. We need to add 10 more successful examples.
Q4
One of the reasons for launching the Beacon Chain was said to be Casper sharding. In my personal view, the decision to create the Beacon Chain is one of the most important moments in Ethereum's history. However, events like the DAO fork or the Shanghai attacks seem to have received more attention. (It could also be that I haven't seen related discussions; if so, please provide links.) I want to ask Vitalik:
When was the decision for the Beacon Chain made? Was it in 2018?
What was the situation at that time? Was it a unanimous decision, or was there controversy?
Was there serious consideration at that time to upgrade eth1 to PoS instead of creating a new Beacon Chain?
Vitalik:
My feeling is that after the DAO fork, very few people in the Ethereum community opposed moving to PoS; everyone thought it was already decided. Initially, there were more people who opposed PoS, but opposition to PoS was highly correlated with opposition to the DAO fork, so after the DAO fork, most of them moved to ETC. After 2016, at least among the core developers, I did not hear any core developer suggest that we should cancel and create a permanent PoW chain.
The decision to create the Beacon Chain was because we believed that before Ethereum moved to this new consensus algorithm, we should first give it a chance to run for a while to ensure there were no obvious vulnerabilities or issues. So we decided to make the PoS chain an independent chain, let it run on its own first, and then merge this chain with the existing Ethereum to reduce risk. This decision was made around the summer of 2018; we also considered other roadmaps, such as PoW -> hybrid PoS -> PoS, but ultimately we decided that starting an independent Beacon Chain was simpler and safer.
Q5
Today's Vitalik has grown golden claws and silver scales, transforming from a dragon-slaying youth into a dragon. During the Ethereum mining era, it was still democratic consensus, but now in V's management system, it seems to be a dictatorial management model. After switching to PoS, it has become a people's congress system; is there suspicion that he secretly joined the party behind everyone's back?
Vitalik:
PoW can only be democratic in the short term. Because there are always economies of scale, larger miners are more efficient, so over time it will become increasingly centralized.
I think the reason we likely did not have ASICs before PoS is that everyone knew we planned to move to PoS, so no one made ASICs. If we had declared from day one that we would be permanently PoW, it is likely that ASICs would have emerged between 2016-2019, unless we kept forking to change the algorithm every year, but that would also be centralizing.
So I think our approach of spending seven years using PoW for distribution and then moving to PoS is the best.
PoS has its own fairness: if you have ten times more money, you can produce ten times more blocks. In ASIC PoW, there are economies of scale, so ten times more money might equal eleven times more blocks.
Another point is that PoS in Ethereum is not a governance method. Ether holders do not have the right to choose which EIPs are included in the next fork, etc. If we used PoS to make such decisions, it would indeed be too plutocratic.
Q6
Community Question:
Can you systematically and in detail explain how to accelerate Ethereum's development from all aspects? Ethereum has been around for ten years, with one update per year; it feels like the development progress is very slow and needs to be greatly accelerated. eth/acc
Vitalik:
The main goal now is to increase the number of blobs; here are:
pectra, increase blob target from 3 to 6
fusaka, add peerdas, further increase blob target
continue optimizing peerdas in 2026 and 2027
add 2D data availability sampling, further increase blob target
There is also a roadmap to increase the L1 gas limit, but this is more complex, such as delayed execution, statelessness, etc.
Q7
Mable:
Do you think EIP-1559 has currently achieved the ideal dynamic balance design? What are your personal views on the proposals/ideas in the community regarding the reduction of inflation in the Ethereum network and the goals they hope to achieve?
Vitalik:
I think EIP-1559 is misunderstood by many. The main goal is not to consume Ether but to improve market efficiency. Before EIP-1559, when you sent a transaction, you sometimes had to wait 1-15 minutes for it to be confirmed; now transactions are almost confirmed within 1-2 blocks every time.
This mechanism has been completely successful, so we are now considering some optimizations, such as multidimensional gas (https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7706),
and this mechanism https://x.com/VitalikButerin/status/1889013890291318838.
Q8
In the Web3 ecosystem, some projects implement large incentive programs, such as the "Odyssey" missions, to attract a large number of users. Recently, projects like Bera Chain and Story Protocol have conducted quite lengthy testnet activities, seemingly involving hundreds of thousands or even millions of users. However, after the token launch, the actual active users significantly decreased, often to less than a thousand. This discrepancy is concerning: how many users are genuinely participating rather than just joining for incentives? At the same time, this may lead project teams to draw misleading conclusions from the statistics. Given your emphasis on decentralization and building real communities, how do you view such practices? Do you think that merely pursuing a large user base—regardless of whether these users are truly active—aligns with the essence of Web3? Or should projects focus more on cultivating a relatively small but highly active user base to ensure sustainable growth and genuine adoption?
Vitalik:
I think such plans are suitable for applications to try; sometimes they fail, and sometimes they succeed. For Ethereum, first, our resources are insufficient to support the scale of Ethereum to implement such plans. Second, our main concern is not just users but developers. Third, the type of developers we attract is very important. So I think attracting developers through community means can provide specific sponsorship in necessary areas. However, it is best not to rely too heavily on this.
About Layer 2 Networks
Q1
Mable:
By now, many L2s have emerged, mainly based on the OP stack, with some attempts at zkrollups. I would love to hear your evaluation of the rollup route over the past few years, hoping for a relatively objective review:
What do you think has been done well, and what differs from what was envisioned back then;
Are rollups overall a good thing for Ethereum or are they parasitic (I saw you calling for these L2s to give back to Ethereum a few days ago)?
Does ETH really need these L2s?
Vitalik:
So far, our scaling approach can be understood as hybrid L1 + L2, but I think no one has clearly defined which transactions should be on L1 and which should be on L2.
The answer of "put everything on L2" is hard to accept because:
This risks losing ETH's position as a medium of exchange, store of value, etc. If you are worried that L2s are stealing users from L1 without giving anything back, this issue becomes more severe in a situation where "L1 does almost nothing."
Cross-L2 operations still require L1. If one L2 has issues, users still need a way to move to another L2. So there are some use cases that inevitably require L1. I wrote about this topic in an article.
The answer of "put everything on L1" is also hard to accept because:
If L1 supports many transactions, it can easily become centralized, even with technologies like ZK-EVM, etc.
The demand for on-chain transactions is infinite; no matter how high L1's TPS is, there will always be an application that needs ten times more TPS (for example, artificial intelligence, micropayments, small prediction markets, etc.)
L2s not only do scaling; they can also provide faster confirmation speeds through preconfirmations and avoid MEV issues through sequencers.
So we need hybrid L1 + L2.
I think the role of L2 will continue to change. For example, it seems that EVM-equivalent L2s are already sufficient, and we may see more privacy-focused L2s (like Aztec, Intmax, etc.), and possibly more application-specific L2s (if an application wants to control its MEV situation, there are benefits, etc.).
So in the short term, I think we should continue to enhance L1's capabilities, increase blobs to give L2 more space, promote cross-L2 interoperability, and then the market will decide which scaling method is suitable for which application.
Q2
Mable:
The rollup route has been proposed for quite some time. Do you think that the centralized sequencers (decentralized sequencers) of Arbitrum / Base / OP now pose a significant challenge for future regulation because they cannot truly resist censorship? Do you think they will move towards decentralized sequencer solutions? If your answer to the previous question is affirmative, what do you think of the centralized sequencer solution of MegaETH?
Vitalik:
Centralized sequencers actually have many advantages:
Centralized sequencers can ensure that they won't steal users' money through front-running, etc.
Instant pre-confirmations
It is very easy to turn a traditional application into a blockchain application because the server directly becomes the sequencer.
We can use the decentralized characteristics of blockchain to avoid the risks of centralized sequencers: the forced inclusion mechanism prevents sequencers from centralizing and censoring users, and optimistic or zk proof mechanisms prevent sequencers from changing or violating the application's rules (for example, suddenly issuing a token or NFT collection).
However, centralized sequencers still carry risks, so we cannot rely entirely on centralized sequencers to solve problems. Having the ability to do based rollups or transact directly on L1 is also important. So I support having both parts of the ecosystem to promote these two methods simultaneously, and then we can see which method is more suitable for which application.
Maintaining the ability for ordinary users to send censorship-resistant transactions is, of course, crucial.
Mable (additional comment): My starting point is that U.S. regulators may go after them, though the probability may not be very high.
Vitalik: If that happens, there are two possibilities:
DAOs will choose sequencers and backup sequencers, and will continuously move to new sequencers.
We use based rollups.
I think the first is worth exploring; I know some L2 teams have considered this direction.
The second is an alternative option, and there may be other reasons we find based rollups better, leading to more direct use of based rollups.
The advantage of Ethereum is that we can try several directions simultaneously.
Q3
Mable:
What are the differences in the technical roadmap of ETH 3.0 and the goals hoped to be achieved in the rollup era? In the ETH 3.0 design plan announced at Devcon last November, was the fact that rollups have not truly provided actual value to the Ethereum mainnet considered?
Vitalik:
There is currently no such thing as ETH 3.0.
Some might say Justin Drake's five-year plan is it, but that plan only covers the consensus layer, not the execution layer, so it is just part of the future of the Ethereum blockchain.
The relationship and balance between L1 and L2 is an execution layer issue. There is another roadmap: strengthening L1's capabilities (increasing gas limits, adding stateless verification (like Verkle) and other features, etc.), improving cross-L2 interoperability, increasing blobs, etc.
I also think that the question of whether L2s are paying enough transaction fees to L1 cannot be viewed too short-term. For example:
Before 4844, the complaints were the opposite: Is L1 sucking the blood of L2?
Now, the blob fees in the last 30 days are 500 ETH.
If the blob target increases from 3 to 128, according to our plan, if the blob gas price remains the same, it would burn 21,333 ETH per month, or 256,000 ETH per year.
So the narrative here can change quickly. Now we need to strengthen L1, ensure that things that should happen on L1 can happen on L1, increase blobs, and maintain our community's adaptability.
Q4
Mable:
In the current state of "a hundred flowers blooming" in the ecosystem, do you think Ethereum needs to strengthen interoperability (not just asset bridging) to connect various ecosystems and actively connect external ecosystems through standardized cross-chain protocols (such as ERC-7281)?
Vitalik:
I think our first priority should be to improve interoperability between Ethereum L2s, as there aren't many stakers, and everyone has a lot of common interests, so the process will be much simpler. Then we can expand to achieve more interoperability between cryptocurrencies, even involving interoperability between cryptocurrencies and fiat currencies.
Ethereum's Organizational Issues
Q1
Mable:
You decided to step up and lead the EF again. I believe this was a very difficult decision after much consideration, showing a kind of courage that is both a leap of faith and a gaze into the abyss, which is very admirable. Would you mind sharing your entire thought process with us today?
At the same time, I am curious if you recognize socialism with Chinese characteristics? My question stems from the discussion you had with Ameen about the "proper board": before stepping onto the right development path, do you think organizations need strong leaders to guide and correct the direction?
Vitalik:
I think the blockchain community and the world are in a relatively dangerous state right now. Many things without long-term value, or even malicious, are happening, and these issues and the people behind them are getting a lot of attention.
However, we cannot just oppose these things without proposing better alternatives. So our goal should be to create this alternative, demonstrating that a stable and brighter future is possible.
Here I am referring to the blockchain circle (if a memecoin drops 97% in a day, what is our future?), and a macro social aspect: many people now feel that democratic methods are impossible and that things can only be done through strongman leadership. But at Devcon, a political scientist told me that one reason he respects Ethereum is that we are a truly open and decentralized ecosystem, and we have succeeded at this scale, which gives him hope. So if we can succeed in this way, the positive impact on the world could be significant, providing many people with a bright and successful example to follow.
But "decentralization" does not mean "doing nothing." The philosophy of subtraction of the Ethereum Foundation does not mean "reducing the foundation to zero," but rather a way to maintain ecological balance. If there is an imbalance in one area of the ecosystem (for example, if one part of the ecosystem is too centralized, or if there is an important public good that others are not addressing), we can help counterbalance it. Once that issue is resolved, the foundation can withdraw from that area. If a new imbalance arises, we can shift resources there, and so on.
In Chinese culture, the way we pursue may resemble the thoughts of the Dao De Jing, but walking this path requires intelligence and the foundation's ability to enhance in certain areas; it is not a matter of "doing nothing and succeeding." Therefore, in the short term, we need to put in considerable effort to make some important pivots.
Q2
Mable:
I am not part of the core Ethereum circle, so I am not very clear on some of the more detailed political issues. From your perspective, what do you think are the main reasons some ETH Maxis OGs have left the Ethereum community? When I recorded a podcast with Shuyao, she mentioned an interesting point: Ethereum needs to hit rock bottom before it can rebuild (half-jokingly). Do you think Ethereum is indeed facing a major reshuffling of existing holders and community members to carve out its own path?
Vitalik:
There are many different people with different stories.
For example, many people in the blockchain circle ten years ago would say that the goal of blockchain is to create a globally neutral system that protects individual freedom and counterbalances government hegemony. Now, if a president launches a memecoin, they might say, "Wow, this is real-world adoption," which is good, but why is it happening on other chains? If we could be a bit friendlier to those politicians, maybe next time it would happen on our chain! Personally, I feel that these people have gone astray. Of course, they would say I am too purely idealistic and unrealistic, etc. Each side has its own story.
Some people also say that the Ethereum ecosystem is too OG-controlled and does not provide enough space for newcomers. But this criticism comes from a different direction, with different groups voicing these arguments.
I believe there is only one suitable path that can help us emerge from these dilemmas: we need to have some updated narratives explaining why Ethereum exists, what ETH is for, what L1 and L2 do, etc. It is no longer the era of infrastructure; it is the era of applications. Therefore, these narratives cannot be abstract concepts like "freedom, openness, censorship resistance, sunpunk public goods," etc.; they need to provide clear answers at the application layer. I plan to support more in the near future: info finance (this also aligns with the direction of AI + crypto), privacy protection, high-quality public goods financing methods, and continuing to build a world open financial platform, which must also include real-world assets. There are many things here that are valuable to many users and align with the values we have always held, and we need to re-support this direction, which will also provide more opportunities for newcomers to come in.
Q3
Mable:
Do you think Ethereum needs a more commercial company-type management? Would you consider that the current difference between ETH and SOL is essentially an efficiency difference between different "organizational forms," as well as a difference in achieving goals? What are the respective goals?
Vitalik:
I think Ethereum is a decentralized ecosystem, not a company. If Ethereum becomes a company, we would lose most of the meaning of Ethereum's existence. The role of a company is to be a company.
In fact, there are many large companies in the Ethereum ecosystem: Consensys, various client teams (Nethermind, Nimbus, etc.), Coinbase, L2 teams (including Aztec and Intmax, whose privacy technologies are very interesting and often underestimated).
The best approach is to find ways to give these companies more opportunities to realize the advantages of being a company, with the foundation serving as a coordinating role.
Q4
Community Issues:
Do all employees of the Ethereum Foundation, including the leadership team, have KPI/OKR-type assessment mechanisms? Non-profit organizations generally face issues of inefficiency; do you think the EF has such problems? If so, how can they be resolved?
Vitalik:
The Ethereum Foundation has started many internal reforms in recent months, so any answer I can give now will quickly become outdated.
It might be better to ask this in six months.
Decentralized Social, Privacy, and Governance
Q1
Mable:
You have always been quite focused on the application of ZK (zero-knowledge proof) technology in the Web3 field. Besides ZK applications in asset trading scenarios, what other scenarios in social media networks do you think could introduce ZK for privacy protection?
Vitalik:
I am very interested in many non-financial ZK use cases, such as:
Witch attack verification. Many services require you to log in with KYC not because they really want to know who you are, but because they just want to know you are not a bot, or if you get banned, you can't just reopen an account 100,000 times. Achieving this use case only requires ZK proof of personhood or proof of reputation; sometimes proof of tokens is sufficient, such as anonworld.
Using cryptographic methods to protect privacy in AI applications. Here, ZK may not necessarily be the most suitable technology; FHE might be, and FHE has made significant progress recently. If we can further reduce the overhead of FHE, there may be opportunities.
Wrapping any Web2 account with zk-snark to use it in Web3. zk-email, anon aadhaar, zkpassport, zktls, etc., are good examples.
I believe this technology has many opportunities to address various social and other issues related to security, governance, and more by protecting individual freedom and privacy.
Q2
Mable:
You should know that @simondlr Simon de la Rouviere conducted the "This Art is Always on Sale" Harberger tax experiment (patronage as an asset class). Do you think such experiments can lead to new developments in future decentralized social networks? Are there any mechanisms you look forward to seeing used for experimentation in decentralized social?
Vitalik:
Yes, I think decentralized social media is a great opportunity to try many new mechanisms.
Harberger tax is one example, and there are other examples such as:
Mechanisms similar to community notes.
Creator payouts, similar to Twitter and YouTube but fairer and more transparent. We can try retro funding, deep funding, quadratic funding, etc.
Combining social media with DAO governance.
Q3
Mable:
This question comes from Tako founder @EEEEdison1992: What do you think about the fact that we, as a group of people in the crypto world, still heavily rely on centralized social applications like Telegram and Twitter for communication and collaboration? Building decentralized social media and truly encrypted communication tools does not seem to be as focused on and recognized by everyone. So far, has their development met your expectations? What advice do you have for teams exploring construction in this field?
Vitalik:
This is also a question I care about a lot. Personally, I have been trying to move most of my conversations from Telegram to Signal over the past two years. However, Signal is not perfect; although it is confidential, it is still centralized, lacks interoperability, requires a phone number to log in, and the servers see a lot of your metadata, etc.
Creating a higher-quality instant messaging software is challenging. I try Status every year; they are working hard to be fully decentralized, and they are doing well, but they still have some reliability issues. In fact, there are various small teams creating their own instant messaging software, but they are not united, so each one tends to be insufficient.
I recently started using Fileverse for my various documents, and I found the user experience to be good enough; now many people in the foundation are using it. If there were a decentralized, encrypted instant messaging software that could achieve this level of quality, I would definitely work hard to help the community transition to that software.
Q4
You have warned about the complexities of "crypto politics" (such as The DAO incident and miner voting controversies), and today the Ethereum Foundation, core developers, L2 teams, and whale holders have formed a hidden power structure. Do you think "protocol-level minimal governance" is sufficient to address the interest games in future hard forks? When governance needs at the social layer (like ENS and Gitcoin) conflict with the protocol layer, are there "constitutional-level" coordination principles?
Vitalik:
I don't think there will be serious issues with "protocol-level minimal governance" in addressing the interest games in future hard forks. This is because almost all L1 protocol decisions are relatively complex technical decisions, and there are rarely characteristics like "good for application A, bad for application B." Sometimes there is a bit of overlap, for example, if there is an EIP adding a new EVM feature, some projects will use it, and some will not, but these issues are not severe, and we have resolved them many times.
Q5
Web3 was supposed to be a space of equality for everyone, yet Warpcast has introduced ranking and automatic comment/private message folding mechanisms, which create a clear hierarchical structure. It has effectively turned into an exclusive social circle for a few influencers, while ordinary users like me, regardless of how valuable their contributions are, cannot receive the attention they deserve. How do you view this growing concentration of attention in Web3 social platforms? Shouldn't we pursue a system driven by ideas rather than social status?
Vitalik:
Creating social media algorithms that are both fair and avoid spam content attacks is a difficult problem. The advantage of Farcaster is that there is a network with different clients all on one network. So if one client does poorly, anyone can create their own client and start chatting with the entire Farcaster network from day one. I am happy to see Tako, Firefly, and other clients in the Farcaster ecosystem; it would be even better if they could solve some of the problems that Warpcast has not addressed.
Vitalik's Worldview
Q1
Are you a communist?
Vitalik:
No. I am not a capitalist either. Both are ideologies of the 20th century. (These terms have been extended and abused to the point of meaninglessness: remember, in the 1990s, Microsoft called Linux "communism": https://www.theregister.com/2000/07/31/msballmerlinuxiscommunism/)
I support freedom, equal global opportunities, kindness and cooperation, human welfare and progress. These are eternal principles. The question is how to leverage our existing tools to realize these values in the context of the 21st century. I have written in detail about various mechanisms I personally support, but I absolutely do not think I am the sole source of good ideas; I believe finding the best methods is a collective project that requires both thought and increasingly realistic world experiments.
Q2
Mable:
In today's era of AI accelerating technological evolution, you previously mentioned the concept of d/acc. Do you think the effective acceleration process of technological rights decentralization aligns with your expectations? Do you have any concerns about potential pitfalls in this area? Personally, I feel a bit powerless; I know that "Beijing Folding" might be a future scenario, and from a humanistic perspective, I hope it doesn't happen, but I feel it is getting closer.
Vitalik:
Here, I need to make an important statement: d/acc is not de-acceleration; it is decentralized defensive acceleration. 😛
This is important because there are indeed people in this world who support de-acceleration and degrowth, etc., but I believe this direction is wrong. In a peaceful world, it would delay important medical and infrastructure improvements, causing more harm. In today's more dangerous world, if we do not accelerate, we will be eaten by those who are willing to accelerate.
Decentralized technologies and defensive technologies need to compete with other technologies. If the sword advances rapidly but the shield does not, the world will become increasingly dangerous. If centralized technologies advance rapidly but decentralized technologies do not, the world will become increasingly centralized. Therefore, we need to counterbalance these trends. Blockchain is part of this story, but only part of it; there is also decentralization outside of blockchain (like P2P networks), as well as software and hardware security (the "shield" of the digital world), and many things in the biological field, etc.
Q3
Mable:
This question comes from @LeotheHorseman: How do you understand Crypto as a counter-establishment infrastructure in achieving Degen Communism? Do you think the current Memecoins (I mean more those quickly launched on Solana) are a "beneficial chaos" for achieving Degen Communism? (This term originates from your blog.) I couldn't find the anonymous feature, so I just posted it directly, and I strongly recommend you play "Disco Elysium"; I believe you will enjoy it.
Vitalik:
Chaos is not necessarily beneficial, nor is it necessarily bad; it depends on the situation. An interesting question is how to create "game rules" that lead to a situation where the chaos produced naturally by the community has positive effects.
For example, civil wars in countries have bad effects unless they are aimed at escaping malicious tyranny. However, market chaos often has positive effects, eliminating old, inefficient companies and giving new companies opportunities to emerge, but sometimes the market can also lead to the problems we see in the blockchain space. So this is actually quite complex.
So how can we create better rules?
I think the current memecoins are far from ideal. I wrote this article last year to see if there are better directions: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2024/03/29/memecoins.html
Q4
Mable:
Have you felt frustration and disappointment with the EF, the community, or the industry in the past year? Looking back over the year, what things have disappointed or even frustrated you? Have you ever thought about taking a break?
Vitalik:
Of course. Perhaps the most disappointing moment for me recently was when someone said that Ethereum is not good and intolerant because we do not respect the "casinos" on the blockchain, while other chains are willing to accept any application, so they are better. If the blockchain community has this moral inversion, I would have no interest in participating in blockchain.
However, I found an interesting point: many people on the internet say such things, but when I personally chat with the community, everyone's values are still the same as before. So I feel a responsibility to this community; I cannot abandon them. We Ethereum need to work together to create the world we want to see. This will require some changes, such as the foundation possibly not being overly neutral at the application layer and needing to intentionally support certain things, but this project is worth doing.
Q5
Mable:
I have heard people from the Milady community say that you might have chosen Milady for some reason, but I am still curious about how you would explain your sense of identity with Milady?
Vitalik:
I think Milady attracts many people because this internet community achieves two things simultaneously:
It is not boring.
It is not malicious.
If you look at the circles of the mainstream world today, you will find that achieving both of these conditions is very difficult, and Milady is one of the most successful examples.
Q6
When I first entered the space, I read a book you wrote called "Ideals: The Genesis of Ethereum's Blockchain," whose preface was written by your father, David. At that time, you were only 25 years old, and you could feel from the words that you had a good relationship with your father. It has been fourteen years since you first encountered Bitcoin; how have the dramatic fluctuations in the cryptocurrency industry and the pressures of work affected your relationship with your family?
Vitalik:
My dad and mom bought ETH from the very beginning, and they have always been following and supporting me. They even bought me a lot of materials to help me learn to code before Ethereum was born. My dad's second wife has also supported me a lot. I have always admired them.
Q7
I have seen the term "Bronze Age mindset" multiple times, and as a Chinese reader of Vitalik, I can't quite grasp the connotation of this term. I am curious how Vitalik would explain the "Bronze Age mindset" to Chinese readers.
Vitalik:
The "Bronze Age mindset" is a book written in 2018, and the general topic is: opposing the concept of equality among people, opposing rational thought, believing that kindness is weak, and promoting an extreme masculine perception. Everyone can check out the book themselves (or copy the content into a bot to summarize it): https://kyl.neocities.org/books/[SOC%20BRO]%20bronze%20age%20mindset.pdf
I think this book represents a relatively strong value in the Western world recently, but I strongly oppose this value because, in my view, the worst things humanity has done have been created by people with this mindset. So I see many people in the American Bitcoin community, the tech industry, etc., starting to promote this idea, and I am quite worried about it.
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。
