After the Spring Festival, during a gathering with friends, I expressed my concerns about Ethereum to them:

I am particularly worried that Vitalik might yield to the influence of certain community opinions, succumb to the current price trends, and, unable to withstand certain pressures, take measures to "pull" Ethereum's price up in the short term, abandoning the ideals and pursuits of decentralization.

My concerns stem from two main reasons:

First, the pressure from the community is immense right now. Some OG holders have completely swapped their Ethereum for tokens from other smart contract chains due to the price. In response, the community has proposed numerous reform suggestions for Ethereum. Some of these I find valuable, but others, in my view, would lead Ethereum towards centralization, which is unacceptable.

Second, the Ethereum Foundation has recently changed some of its practices, which has left me feeling distinctly uneasy.

Let's first look at the first point.

A passage from a new book published by Taiwan's Tianxia Publishing House, "Buying into Unicorns," left a deep impression on me.

The essence of this passage is:

A disruptive innovation project belongs to the future; it belongs to future society and future humanity. Therefore, its business model and commercial scenarios must differ greatly from the current general environment and people's habitual thinking.

Most people today are not accustomed to, reject, or even refuse this difference.

As a result, a founder of a disruptive innovation project often encounters situations where investors are uncomfortable and cannot understand some of the seemingly "incomprehensible" alternative practices within the project, and they inadvertently suggest that the founder compromise, settle, and return to the present, back to the familiar living environment and scenarios.

Because these investors cannot see the future through the eyes of the entrepreneur, nor understand the vision in the entrepreneur's mind, they naturally cannot comprehend these "incomprehensible" alternative practices.

This is very normal; most people are like this.

However, it is precisely at such times that founders should have the courage to reject such investors.

This is very difficult.

Yet, for an entrepreneur aspiring to disrupt the status quo, this courage is essential. Otherwise, if he modifies his product according to these investors' suggestions, he may cater to more people's views in the short term, even achieving some immediately visible progress, but in the long run, his product will lose its greatness and become just another new competitor among many mediocre products in the market.

This passage perfectly describes the pressure Vitalik is currently facing and the clearly centralizing suggestions within the community.

In fact, compared to founders of traditional internet projects, founders of crypto projects face even more and greater pressures.

In the traditional internet industry, project founders deal with a very limited number of venture capitalists. With a limited number of investors, founders can patiently explain and calmly handle situations.

But in the crypto community, project founders face a vast number of retail investors/holders, and among these retail investors/holders, speculators make up the vast majority.

In such an environment, the louder and more chaotic voices often come from the short-term, shortsighted opinions of speculators. This brings even greater and more challenging pressure to the founders.

Does Vitalik have the courage to reject such suggestions and the investors who leave because they support centralization?

Now let's look at the second point.

Recently, a frequent action by the Ethereum Foundation has triggered significant dissatisfaction within the community: repeatedly selling a considerable amount of Ethereum.

This dissatisfaction is evident:

In such a sluggish market, selling? So frequently? Doesn't this exacerbate the pressure on the price? What is the purpose of this?

Why not stake or lend the Ethereum held by the foundation in DeFi? The interest alone would be enough to cover the foundation's expenses. Why not do that?

When I first saw this DeFi suggestion, I thought it made sense and was also puzzled by the foundation's actions. However, what I was more concerned about was not whether to sell the coins, but whether the funds used by the Ethereum Foundation were efficient. Was there unnecessary waste? Should redundant personnel be streamlined?

In response, Vitalik explained that:

The reason the Ethereum Foundation can only rely on selling Ethereum to solve its funding issues, rather than putting them into DeFi protocols for collateral, is to avoid conflicts of interest.

Once the foundation's funds are placed in a certain DeFi protocol, it would inevitably lead to considerations favoring those DeFi protocols when Ethereum contemplates upgrades in the future, whether consciously or unconsciously.

This explanation was something I had never thought of before. I had never considered the issue of conflicts of interest in this regard.

In the country and environment we live in, such trivial matters are hardly worth mentioning.

But Vitalik thought of this.

For several days after seeing this explanation, I closely followed his related tweets and replies. Unfortunately, such an explanation was completely drowned out in a sea of comments, and almost no one paid attention.

Neither the community nor Vitalik himself has mentioned it again.

I find this very regrettable.

What worries me even more is what happened next:

A few days later, the Ethereum Foundation deposited Ethereum into protocols like AAVE and Compound.

In fact, whether the Ethereum Foundation sells ETH or deposits ETH into DeFi, I can understand. This is a dilemma; no matter what is done, it will damage certain values and interests. It's just like the THE DAO incident back in the day—there is no perfect solution.

So, in my view, how it is done is not important; I can understand either way, but I have a significant question in my mind:

Is this change by the Ethereum Foundation a compromise in values due to community pressure, or a temporary compromise forced by financial pressure?

If it is the latter, I think the problem is not significant, and there will be opportunities for remedy in the future; but if it is the former, then it is very dangerous.

Therefore, I am looking forward to Vitalik providing a positive response to these questions.

After reading a recent interview with Vitalik published by BlockBeats (link attached at the end), my worries dissipated.

Reference link:

https://www.theblockbeats.info/news/56951

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。