Facing increasing criticism over vague technical direction, low collaboration efficiency, and centralized governance, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) is undergoing a deep-seated organizational restructuring.

Facing increasing criticism over vague technical direction, low collaboration efficiency, and centralized governance, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) is undergoing a deep-seated organizational restructuring.

Renaming and Restructuring of Development Teams, Strategic Adjustments Spark Controversy

On June 2, the Ethereum Foundation announced a reorganization of its research and development teams, making significant structural changes to the internal "Protocol Research and Development Team (PR&D)" and officially renaming it "Protocol." This restructuring is seen as more than just a simple organizational adjustment; it represents a systemic transformation from strategic goals, talent allocation to governance philosophy.

The newly formed "Protocol" team will focus on three strategic goals: scaling the mainnet (L1), scaling data availability (blobs), and improving user experience (UX), aiming to establish closer collaboration mechanisms and clear resource allocation methods.

The Ethereum Foundation has clearly stated that the newly formed Protocol team will focus on these three strategic goals and appoint leaders for each direction: Tim Beiko and Ansgar Dietrichs will be in charge of L1 scaling, Alex Stokes and Francesco D'Amato will handle blob scaling, while Barnabé Monnot and Josh Rudolf will focus on enhancing user experience. They will be supported by renowned researcher and cryptographer Dankrad Feist. Feist, who named the new Ethereum sharding scheme "danksharding," previously sparked controversy over his advisory role with the Ethereum re-staking protocol EigenLayer, which earned him a large number of tokens. He later resigned from his advisory position.

The Ethereum Foundation's first public layoffs and strategic adjustments have once again sparked controversy. Is the foundation model failing?

Ethereum Foundation's Pre-restructuring Organizational Structure Source: Internet

At the same time, the foundation also announced that some development team members will no longer continue in their roles. Although the official list of layoffs was not disclosed, based on the changes in the PR&D restructuring, about a dozen developers are expected to leave, and the department's responsibilities will be further refined and clarified. The EF encouraged other ecosystem projects to absorb these experienced talents and announced the recruitment of new members, with key positions including the head of user experience and the head of performance engineering.

The Ethereum Foundation stated that this restructuring will accelerate the transformation of research results into products and advance Ethereum's scalability and user-friendliness to higher standards.

"We hope this new organizational structure will allow internal teams to focus more and drive key plans forward. At the same time, we also had to make some very difficult decisions. Saying goodbye to talented and hardworking colleagues is heartbreaking. This decision does not mean that their value or contributions are ignored," said Hsiao-Wei Weng, the co-executive director of the Ethereum Foundation, in a post.

However, the Ethereum Foundation's restructuring has also sparked strong reactions from core developers and within the industry. "At this very moment, the word 'decentralization' quietly and permanently disappeared from Ethereum's roadmap," said Ethereum core developer Peter Szilagyi in a post. Great companies have long understood that their most valuable asset is people—the team members. Google even explicitly states in its onboarding manual that developers come before users, who are everywhere. Organizations that fail to understand this will eventually be marginalized. Yes, that's the subtext.

Kyle Samani, co-founder of Multicoin Capital, also questioned the Ethereum Foundation's strategic adjustments, pointing out that the definition of "focus" usually means reducing rather than increasing, especially emphasizing that there should be no conflicts between goals. When considering from the perspective of the third goal (i.e., scaling L1 and L2 networks and improving user experience), the first goal (i.e., layoffs) conflicts with the second goal (i.e., clarifying responsibilities).

Miles Jennings, head of crypto policy and general counsel at a16z, recently argued that the crypto industry needs to move beyond the non-profit foundation model, as it no longer meets current needs. He believes that while foundations played a role in avoiding regulation and promoting decentralization in the early stages, they have now evolved into centralized gatekeepers due to misaligned incentives, legal and economic restrictions, and inefficient operations, deviating from their original intentions. With the U.S. Congress proposing a maturity-based regulatory framework based on control, the crypto industry has an opportunity to break free from foundations. Ordinary development company structures are superior to foundations, as they can efficiently deploy capital, attract top talent through equity incentives, and achieve rapid response and continuous growth through market feedback. Jennings emphasized that companies achieve incentive alignment with token holders through market discipline and clear financial metrics (such as revenue and profit margins), while foundations, lacking accountability and profit motives, struggle to optimize resource allocation. Employee incentives are also limited by token price fluctuations and are unsustainable. Public benefit corporations, network revenue sharing, milestone-based token lock-ups, and contractual protections are existing tools that can solve potential misalignments between companies and token holders. In addition, two emerging solutions, DUNA and BORGs, provide simplified ways to implement these solutions while eliminating the complexity and opacity of the foundation structure. The next era of crypto will be built on scalable systems—with real incentives, real accountability, and real decentralization.

Internal Organizational Restructuring: A Long-Overdue Self-Correction

The Ethereum Foundation's organizational restructuring was not sudden but rather the culmination of years of accumulated structural contradictions and external criticism.

In the past, the foundation was criticized for being overly focused on long-term research while neglecting the short-term needs of users and developers. Its centralized governance structure also faced continuous质疑. For example, former Ethereum Foundation engineer Hari bluntly pointed out this year that Ethereum and its virtual machine (EVM) lack a clear and cohesive technical vision, and research and development progress is slow. Without decisive change, it may become rigid in the future. He suggested reducing reliance on pure research and moving towards a product-oriented delivery rhythm.

Similar voices also came from Ethereum's early member Anthony DOnofrio, who criticized EF as a "centralized decentralized organization" in structure, with an executive director, a finance department, and a layer of paid developers. Although this structure is effective in coordination, it goes against the ideal of decentralization. He called for future Ethereum to not only need technical research but also "visionary leaders" who understand its social and political impact.

Stani Kulechov, founder of Aave, also previously tweeted suggestions for EF to reform its budget and operational structure, fire irresponsible members, and allocate resources based on ability. He emphasized that the Ethereum Foundation should be a streamlined and efficient organization.

As the most symbolic figure of Ethereum, co-founder Vitalik Buterin's role in the Ethereum Foundation has long been controversial. For example, in February of this year, community member Ameen Soleimani even initiated a vote to explore whether Vitalik should play the role of a "king" (governance decision-maker) or a "prophet" (value leader) in the Ethereum ecosystem. 80.1% of voters believed he was closer to the latter. In response, Vitalik said, "The claim of holding three out of five seats on the EF board has not been true since 2017. Since then, I have only had one out of three seats."

Faced with criticism and structural challenges, the Ethereum Foundation launched several internal reform initiatives at the beginning of this year. As early as January, Vitalik publicly announced changes to the foundation's leadership model, aiming to enhance technical expertise and strengthen communication with developers. According to Haseeb Qureshi, managing partner of Dragonfly, the EF leadership at that time had gradually broken the "not invented here" mentality, showing greater tolerance and openness to external ideas.

In February, Aya Miyaguchi, the former executive director of the Ethereum Foundation, was promoted to chairperson. Aya has always advocated a "philosophy of subtraction," arguing that the foundation should avoid becoming a highly centralized power institution, promote decentralization led by the community, and push for power delegation. She likened Ethereum to an "infinite garden," encouraging an open and permissionless innovation ecosystem and emphasizing long-term sustainability over short-term interests. However, her idealistic style has also sparked some controversy, with some questioning its abstractness and lack of execution.

After her transition to chairperson, Aya mainly focused on driving strategic partnerships and maintaining relationships, reducing her direct involvement in specific affairs. This change was once interpreted by the community as a "promotion in name only."

In addition, the Ethereum Foundation also launched an exploration of combining AI with governance, hiring Devansh Mehta as the head of AI × Public Goods Governance, and continued to strengthen its technical backbone by appointing Hsiao-Wei Wang and Tomasz Stańczak as co-executive directors. They are key contributors to the Ethereum Beacon Chain and the founder of the Nethermind execution client, respectively.

While there were frequent changes in the upper echelons, core members of the Ethereum Foundation were also continuously leaving. For example, in January of this year, Ethereum core developer Eric Conner announced on social media that he was leaving the Ethereum Foundation, citing issues such as lack of transparency, disconnection from the community, and resistance to change within the EF. He believed that the foundation could still function normally with an 80% budget cut. Ethereum Foundation researcher Danny Ryan

Facing increasing criticism over vague technical direction, low collaboration efficiency, and centralized governance, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) is undergoing a deep-seated organizational restructuring.

Facing increasing criticism over vague technical direction, low collaboration efficiency, and centralized governance, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) is undergoing a deep-seated organizational restructuring.

Renaming and Restructuring of Development Teams, Strategic Adjustments Spark Controversy

On June 2, the Ethereum Foundation announced a reorganization of its research and development teams, making significant structural changes to the internal "Protocol Research and Development Team (PR&D)" and officially renaming it "Protocol." This restructuring is seen as more than just a simple organizational adjustment; it represents a systemic transformation from strategic goals, talent allocation to governance philosophy.

The newly formed "Protocol" team will focus on three strategic goals: scaling the mainnet (L1), scaling data availability (blobs), and improving user experience (UX), aiming to establish closer collaboration mechanisms and clear resource allocation methods.

The Ethereum Foundation has clearly stated that the newly formed Protocol team will focus on these three strategic goals and appoint leaders for each direction: Tim Beiko and Ansgar Dietrichs will be in charge of L1 scaling, Alex Stokes and Francesco D'Amato will handle blob scaling, while Barnabé Monnot and Josh Rudolf will focus on enhancing user experience. They will be supported by renowned researcher and cryptographer Dankrad Feist. Feist, who named the new Ethereum sharding scheme "danksharding," previously sparked controversy over his advisory role with the Ethereum re-staking protocol EigenLayer, which earned him a large number of tokens. He later resigned from his advisory position.

The Ethereum Foundation's first public layoffs and strategic adjustments have once again sparked controversy. Is the foundation model failing?

Ethereum Foundation's Pre-restructuring Organizational Structure Source: Internet

At the same time, the foundation also announced that some development team members will no longer continue in their roles. Although the official list of layoffs was not disclosed, based on the changes in the PR&D restructuring, about a dozen developers are expected to leave, and the department's responsibilities will be further refined and clarified. The EF encouraged other ecosystem projects to absorb these experienced talents and announced the recruitment of new members, with key positions including the head of user experience and the head of performance engineering.

The Ethereum Foundation stated that this restructuring will accelerate the transformation of research results into products and advance Ethereum's scalability and user-friendliness to higher standards.

"We hope this new organizational structure will allow internal teams to focus more and drive key plans forward. At the same time, we also had to make some very difficult decisions. Saying goodbye to talented and hardworking colleagues is heartbreaking. This decision does not mean that their value or contributions are ignored," said Hsiao-Wei Weng, the co-executive director of the Ethereum Foundation, in a post.

However, the Ethereum Foundation's restructuring has also sparked strong reactions from core developers and within the industry. "At this very moment, the word 'decentralization' quietly and permanently disappeared from Ethereum's roadmap," said Ethereum core developer Peter Szilagyi in a post. Great companies have long understood that their most valuable asset is people—the team members. Google even explicitly states in its onboarding manual that developers come before users, who are everywhere. Organizations that fail to understand this will eventually be marginalized. Yes, that's the subtext.

Kyle Samani, co-founder of Multicoin Capital, also questioned the Ethereum Foundation's strategic adjustments, pointing out that the definition of "focus" usually means reducing rather than increasing, especially emphasizing that there should be no conflicts between goals. When considering from the perspective of the third goal (i.e., scaling L1 and L2 networks and improving user experience), the first goal (i.e., layoffs) conflicts with the second goal (i.e., clarifying responsibilities).

Miles Jennings, head of crypto policy and general counsel at a16z, recently argued that the crypto industry needs to move beyond the non-profit foundation model, as it no longer meets current needs. He believes that while foundations played a role in avoiding regulation and promoting decentralization in the early stages, they have now evolved into centralized gatekeepers due to misaligned incentives, legal and economic restrictions, and inefficient operations, deviating from their original intentions. With the U.S. Congress proposing a maturity-based regulatory framework based on control, the crypto industry has an opportunity to break free from foundations. Ordinary development company structures are superior to foundations, as they can efficiently deploy capital, attract top talent through equity incentives, and achieve rapid response and continuous growth through market feedback. Jennings emphasized that companies achieve incentive alignment with token holders through market discipline and clear financial metrics (such as revenue and profit margins), while foundations, lacking accountability and profit motives, struggle to optimize resource allocation. Employee incentives are also limited by token price fluctuations and are unsustainable. Public benefit corporations, network revenue sharing, milestone-based token lock-ups, and contractual protections are existing tools that can solve potential misalignments between companies and token holders. In addition, two emerging solutions, DUNA and BORGs, provide simplified ways to implement these solutions while eliminating the complexity and opacity of the foundation structure. The next era of crypto will be built on scalable systems—with real incentives, real accountability, and real decentralization.

Internal Organizational Restructuring: A Long-Overdue Self-Correction

The Ethereum Foundation's organizational restructuring was not sudden but rather the culmination of years of accumulated structural contradictions and external criticism.

In the past, the foundation was criticized for being overly focused on long-term research while neglecting the short-term needs of users and developers. Its centralized governance structure also faced continuous质疑. For example, former Ethereum Foundation engineer Hari bluntly pointed out this year that Ethereum and its virtual machine (EVM) lack a clear and cohesive technical vision, and research and development progress is slow. Without decisive change, it may become rigid in the future. He suggested reducing reliance on pure research and moving towards a product-oriented delivery rhythm.

Similar voices also came from Ethereum's early member Anthony DOnofrio, who criticized EF as a "centralized decentralized organization" in structure, with an executive director, a finance department, and a layer of paid developers. Although this structure is effective in coordination, it goes against the ideal of decentralization. He called for future Ethereum to not only need technical research but also "visionary leaders" who understand its social and political impact.

Stani Kulechov, founder of Aave, also previously tweeted suggestions for EF to reform its budget and operational structure, fire irresponsible members, and allocate resources based on ability. He emphasized that the Ethereum Foundation should be a streamlined and efficient organization.

As the most symbolic figure of Ethereum, co-founder Vitalik Buterin's role in the Ethereum Foundation has long been controversial. For example, in February of this year, community member Ameen Soleimani even initiated a vote to explore whether Vitalik should play the role of a "king" (governance decision-maker) or a "prophet" (value leader) in the Ethereum ecosystem. 80.1% of voters believed he was closer to the latter. In response, Vitalik said, "The claim of holding three out of five seats on the EF board has not been true since 2017. Since then, I have only had one out of three seats."

Faced with criticism and structural challenges, the Ethereum Foundation launched several internal reform initiatives at the beginning of this year. As early as January, Vitalik publicly announced changes to the foundation's leadership model, aiming to enhance technical expertise and strengthen communication with developers. According to Haseeb Qureshi, managing partner of Dragonfly, the EF leadership at that time had gradually broken the "not invented here" mentality, showing greater tolerance and openness to external ideas.

In February, Aya Miyaguchi, the former executive director of the Ethereum Foundation, was promoted to chairperson. Aya has always advocated a "philosophy of subtraction," arguing that the foundation should avoid becoming a highly centralized power institution, promote decentralization led by the community, and push for power delegation. She likened Ethereum to an "infinite garden," encouraging an open and permissionless innovation ecosystem and emphasizing long-term sustainability over short-term interests. However, her idealistic style has also sparked some controversy, with some questioning its abstractness and lack of execution.

After her transition to chairperson, Aya mainly focused on driving strategic partnerships and maintaining relationships, reducing her direct involvement in specific affairs. This change was once interpreted by the community as a "promotion in name only."

In addition, the Ethereum Foundation also launched an exploration of combining AI with governance, hiring Devansh Mehta as the head of AI × Public Goods Governance, and continued to strengthen its technical backbone by appointing Hsiao-Wei Wang and Tomasz Stańczak as co-executive directors. They are key contributors to the Ethereum Beacon Chain and the founder of the Nethermind execution client, respectively.

While there were frequent changes in the upper echelons, core members of the Ethereum Foundation were also continuously leaving. For example, in January of this year, Ethereum core developer Eric Conner announced on social media that he was leaving the Ethereum Foundation, citing issues such as lack of transparency, disconnection from the community, and resistance to change within the EF. He believed that the foundation could still function normally with an 80% budget cut. Ethereum Foundation researcher Danny Ryan