Ethereum is currently generating active discussion. As Barnabé, a researcher at the Ethereum Foundation (EF), has noted, in order to make decisions about the issues and discussions surrounding Ethereum, it is necessary to clearly define the goals and the approaches to achieve them [1]. In this regard, EF has taken on the role of an important player by setting direction and pushing forward implementations.

On the other hand, Ethereum does not belong to any specific individual or organization. Therefore, it is also crucial for each participant in the ecosystem to ask, “What does Ethereum mean to me?” and organize their own methods of contributing to that goal from their own perspectives.

In this article, we will clarify the goals and approaches that we envision, exploring the possibilities of contribution from a viewpoint that complements EF’s activities. It should be emphasized here that this is not intended as a criticism of EF. Rather, it is with deep respect for EF’s activities that we hope thinking about goals and means of realization from a different standpoint will benefit the ecosystem.

Before asking ourselves, “What is Ethereum to us, and how can we contribute to that goal?” let us first clarify why we are focusing on Ethereum in the first place. The fundamental reason is our belief that Ethereum is currently the closest to what are known as The God Protocols.

The God Protocols refers to the ideal protocol proposed by Nick Szabo in 1997, which allows for any transaction or contract to be executed without trusting a third party [2].

In this ideal protocol, it acts as a fair and trustworthy entity for all parties involved, receiving inputs from all participants, computing them accurately, and returning only the necessary outputs. At this time, each participant learns no more than what can be derived from the inputs and outputs, meaning no participant gains knowledge beyond what can be inferred from the observable inputs and outputs.

This is not meant to be a strict technical specification or implementation. Rather, it was suggested as an abstract concept pointing to an ideal form.

With respect to this ideal, our position is that “Ethereum + iO (indistinguishability obfuscation) cryptography = The God Protocols” [3]. However, this is not to say that “other distributed systems or cryptographic technologies are unworthy of being called The God Protocols.” From a strictly technological standpoint, we have simply defined “Ethereum + iO = The God Protocols.”

What we want to emphasize in this article is that The God Protocols cannot be realized by meeting technical conditions alone. For the protocol to truly function, a deeply rooted ecosystem is essential. By “ecosystem depth,” we refer to the broad spectrum of real-world participants—developers, researchers, users, traders, validators, businesses, and ideological supporters—who engage with the network and help imbue it with social meaning.

Such an ecosystem doesn’t arise from technical sophistication alone. For example, when it comes to programming languages, there are sophisticated languages like Haskell and Lisp. However, the ones that are widely used in practice tend to be languages like Python and JavaScript, which are more approachable and benefit from abundant communities and resources.

The same dynamics apply to distributed systems: while there may be projects that are more advanced than Ethereum on a technical level, none seem to have the deepest, most diverse ecosystem.

This fact demonstrates that the choice of a technology is not determined solely by its design elegance or performance, but rather by whether there is a practical ecosystem in which many people can participate, learn, and continue to use it over time.

For a researcher, a deep ecosystem implies the presence of outstanding researchers, which facilitates discussion, collaboration, and advances in research. For a developer, it means there are talented developers, along with a rich development environment and experience.

Here, we want to raise the question, “If no one uses the protocol, can it truly be called a god protocol?” No matter how sophisticated a protocol may be, if it is not used by anyone and remains disconnected from society, can it really be considered godlike?

We regard Ethereum as currently the closest to The God Protocols precisely because it has both the technological prerequisites and an ecosystem depth. A protocol that is actually used, criticized, and continuously improved is the one that realistically approaches becoming a functioning “god protocol.”

Based on these considerations, our objective is to bring Ethereum closer to The God Protocols and create points of contact with society.

To achieve this objective, we place emphasis on the following three approaches:

1. Solving problems internal to Ethereum

2. Identifying the problems that can be solved by an ideal protocol

3. Fostering the ecosystem

Approaches 1 and 3 overlap with EF’s initiatives, and our activities will complement those. Meanwhile, Approach 2 leverages our own unique perspective and strengths.

Verifying the extent to which Ethereum meets the requirements of The God Protocols is critical to determining our direction and methods of contribution. Below is a simple formulation of six technical properties that constitute The God Protocols, and the current state of Ethereum’s compliance with them [3]:

1. Permissionless: Ethereum is a public blockchain where anyone can connect to the network, submit transactions, run a node, or deploy smart contracts. No central authority’s approval is required to participate, satisfying the requirement of open access envisioned by The God Protocols. While there is a 32 ETH requirement to participate as a validator, this does not necessitate any special permission from a centralized entity.

2. Turing Completeness: Ethereum includes the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), which can execute code written in high-level languages like Solidity, offering Turing-complete capabilities. This means any computational problem can, in principle, be implemented, meeting the flexibility requirement that The God Protocols stipulate “can solve all computable problems.” Additionally, Ethereum handles the potential infinite loop problem inherent to Turing completeness by using a gas limit concept. Each block updates a global state that records transactions and contract states. In contrast, Bitcoin, for example, is not Turing-complete, as it cannot express complex logic or loops.

3. Consistency: Ethereum employs a PoS-based consensus algorithm called Gasper (Casper FFG and LMD GHOST). As long as blocks are proposed and finalized correctly, all nodes share the same state. Temporary forks can occur, but the network eventually converges on a single chain, ensuring all nodes recognize the same state.

4. Liveness: Since Ethereum is operated by geographically distributed nodes, the failure or shutdown of some nodes does not cause a complete network-wide failure. Even under DoS attacks and other disruptions, the system as a whole continues to operate, ultimately extending the legitimate blockchain.

5. Censorship Resistance: Ethereum is far more resistant to censorship than a centralized system, making it extremely difficult to tamper with or suppress transactions. However, as exemplified by the MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) problem, there remain concerns about how block proposers and searchers can manipulate transaction ordering. This issue also presents a structure in which searchers or builders gain an advantage by learning transaction details in advance, making it hard to claim “complete fairness.” Proposals like EIP-7805

Privacy and censorship resistance, particularly in the context of MEV, still pose significant challenges.

We are mainly focusing on research and development that addresses the fairness and censorship concerns posed by MEV. As for privacy, we plan to investigate how an ideal protocol could resolve various issues, and then articulate those connections (more on this in the next section). These activities are undertaken in collaboration with external researchers and teams, often supported by EF and other grants.

In the process of bringing Ethereum closer to The God Protocols, identifying the types of societal problems it could address is of paramount importance.

For instance, if we realize Ethereum with iO, it could potentially enable voting systems, auctions, and self-executing contracts involving personal authentication—applications that have long been considered difficult in decentralized systems. Specifically, establishing resilience against Sybil attacks and guaranteeing one-person-one-vote while preserving privacy could hold significant implications for real-world use cases.

However, iO and related cryptographic technologies are still immature at present, and many technical challenges stand in the way of practical deployment.

That is precisely why clarifying which societal problems are connected to these technical challenges, and articulating their impacts, becomes key to real-world adoption.

We believe many of these issues lie within the realm of game theory, and we are conducting research to identify the problems that could be resolved by Ethereum with iO.

As mentioned earlier, realizing The God Protocols requires not just meeting the technical conditions but also nurturing a robust ecosystem that supports them.

As part of this effort, we established a research house in Tokyo called Uzumaki House, where researchers, industry representatives, and individuals can meet, network, and collaborate in a physical space. This endeavor is operated with support from EF, and we hope it will be an effective approach to cultivating the ecosystem.

Ethereum is, at present, the closest entity to The God Protocols, both in terms of its technical components and the depth of its ecosystem.

Yet there are many challenges to achieving the ideal. Among them, censorship resistance in the face of MEV, privacy, and identifying the societal problems an ideal protocol could potentially solve are key issues moving forward.

From addressing internal problems to systematizing the societal challenges that an ideal protocol might resolve, and finally to fostering the ecosystem that supports it, our aim is to contribute to the ecosystem with a three-pronged approach. Underpinning these efforts is a commitment to building a more equitable and liberated social foundation through Ethereum.

[1] https://ethresear.ch/t/decoupling-throughput-from-local-building/22004

[2] https://nakamotoinstitute.org/library/the-god-protocols/

[3] https://titaniaresear.ch/ja/ethereum-with-io-is-god-protocols

Ethereum is currently generating active discussion. As Barnabé, a researcher at the Ethereum Foundation (EF), has noted, in order to make decisions about the issues and discussions surrounding Ethereum, it is necessary to clearly define the goals and the approaches to achieve them [1]. In this regard, EF has taken on the role of an important player by setting direction and pushing forward implementations.

On the other hand, Ethereum does not belong to any specific individual or organization. Therefore, it is also crucial for each participant in the ecosystem to ask, “What does Ethereum mean to me?” and organize their own methods of contributing to that goal from their own perspectives.

In this article, we will clarify the goals and approaches that we envision, exploring the possibilities of contribution from a viewpoint that complements EF’s activities. It should be emphasized here that this is not intended as a criticism of EF. Rather, it is with deep respect for EF’s activities that we hope thinking about goals and means of realization from a different standpoint will benefit the ecosystem.

Before asking ourselves, “What is Ethereum to us, and how can we contribute to that goal?” let us first clarify why we are focusing on Ethereum in the first place. The fundamental reason is our belief that Ethereum is currently the closest to what are known as The God Protocols.

The God Protocols refers to the ideal protocol proposed by Nick Szabo in 1997, which allows for any transaction or contract to be executed without trusting a third party [2].

In this ideal protocol, it acts as a fair and trustworthy entity for all parties involved, receiving inputs from all participants, computing them accurately, and returning only the necessary outputs. At this time, each participant learns no more than what can be derived from the inputs and outputs, meaning no participant gains knowledge beyond what can be inferred from the observable inputs and outputs.

This is not meant to be a strict technical specification or implementation. Rather, it was suggested as an abstract concept pointing to an ideal form.

With respect to this ideal, our position is that “Ethereum + iO (indistinguishability obfuscation) cryptography = The God Protocols” [3]. However, this is not to say that “other distributed systems or cryptographic technologies are unworthy of being called The God Protocols.” From a strictly technological standpoint, we have simply defined “Ethereum + iO = The God Protocols.”

What we want to emphasize in this article is that The God Protocols cannot be realized by meeting technical conditions alone. For the protocol to truly function, a deeply rooted ecosystem is essential. By “ecosystem depth,” we refer to the broad spectrum of real-world participants—developers, researchers, users, traders, validators, businesses, and ideological supporters—who engage with the network and help imbue it with social meaning.

Such an ecosystem doesn’t arise from technical sophistication alone. For example, when it comes to programming languages, there are sophisticated languages like Haskell and Lisp. However, the ones that are widely used in practice tend to be languages like Python and JavaScript, which are more approachable and benefit from abundant communities and resources.

The same dynamics apply to distributed systems: while there may be projects that are more advanced than Ethereum on a technical level, none seem to have the deepest, most diverse ecosystem.

This fact demonstrates that the choice of a technology is not determined solely by its design elegance or performance, but rather by whether there is a practical ecosystem in which many people can participate, learn, and continue to use it over time.

For a researcher, a deep ecosystem implies the presence of outstanding researchers, which facilitates discussion, collaboration, and advances in research. For a developer, it means there are talented developers, along with a rich development environment and experience.

Here, we want to raise the question, “If no one uses the protocol, can it truly be called a god protocol?” No matter how sophisticated a protocol may be, if it is not used by anyone and remains disconnected from society, can it really be considered godlike?

We regard Ethereum as currently the closest to The God Protocols precisely because it has both the technological prerequisites and an ecosystem depth. A protocol that is actually used, criticized, and continuously improved is the one that realistically approaches becoming a functioning “god protocol.”

Based on these considerations, our objective is to bring Ethereum closer to The God Protocols and create points of contact with society.

To achieve this objective, we place emphasis on the following three approaches:

1. Solving problems internal to Ethereum

2. Identifying the problems that can be solved by an ideal protocol

3. Fostering the ecosystem

Approaches 1 and 3 overlap with EF’s initiatives, and our activities will complement those. Meanwhile, Approach 2 leverages our own unique perspective and strengths.

Verifying the extent to which Ethereum meets the requirements of The God Protocols is critical to determining our direction and methods of contribution. Below is a simple formulation of six technical properties that constitute The God Protocols, and the current state of Ethereum’s compliance with them [3]:

1. Permissionless: Ethereum is a public blockchain where anyone can connect to the network, submit transactions, run a node, or deploy smart contracts. No central authority’s approval is required to participate, satisfying the requirement of open access envisioned by The God Protocols. While there is a 32 ETH requirement to participate as a validator, this does not necessitate any special permission from a centralized entity.

2. Turing Completeness: Ethereum includes the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), which can execute code written in high-level languages like Solidity, offering Turing-complete capabilities. This means any computational problem can, in principle, be implemented, meeting the flexibility requirement that The God Protocols stipulate “can solve all computable problems.” Additionally, Ethereum handles the potential infinite loop problem inherent to Turing completeness by using a gas limit concept. Each block updates a global state that records transactions and contract states. In contrast, Bitcoin, for example, is not Turing-complete, as it cannot express complex logic or loops.

3. Consistency: Ethereum employs a PoS-based consensus algorithm called Gasper (Casper FFG and LMD GHOST). As long as blocks are proposed and finalized correctly, all nodes share the same state. Temporary forks can occur, but the network eventually converges on a single chain, ensuring all nodes recognize the same state.

4. Liveness: Since Ethereum is operated by geographically distributed nodes, the failure or shutdown of some nodes does not cause a complete network-wide failure. Even under DoS attacks and other disruptions, the system as a whole continues to operate, ultimately extending the legitimate blockchain.

5. Censorship Resistance: Ethereum is far more resistant to censorship than a centralized system, making it extremely difficult to tamper with or suppress transactions. However, as exemplified by the MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) problem, there remain concerns about how block proposers and searchers can manipulate transaction ordering. This issue also presents a structure in which searchers or builders gain an advantage by learning transaction details in advance, making it hard to claim “complete fairness.” Proposals like EIP-7805

Privacy and censorship resistance, particularly in the context of MEV, still pose significant challenges.

We are mainly focusing on research and development that addresses the fairness and censorship concerns posed by MEV. As for privacy, we plan to investigate how an ideal protocol could resolve various issues, and then articulate those connections (more on this in the next section). These activities are undertaken in collaboration with external researchers and teams, often supported by EF and other grants.

In the process of bringing Ethereum closer to The God Protocols, identifying the types of societal problems it could address is of paramount importance.

For instance, if we realize Ethereum with iO, it could potentially enable voting systems, auctions, and self-executing contracts involving personal authentication—applications that have long been considered difficult in decentralized systems. Specifically, establishing resilience against Sybil attacks and guaranteeing one-person-one-vote while preserving privacy could hold significant implications for real-world use cases.

However, iO and related cryptographic technologies are still immature at present, and many technical challenges stand in the way of practical deployment.

That is precisely why clarifying which societal problems are connected to these technical challenges, and articulating their impacts, becomes key to real-world adoption.

We believe many of these issues lie within the realm of game theory, and we are conducting research to identify the problems that could be resolved by Ethereum with iO.

As mentioned earlier, realizing The God Protocols requires not just meeting the technical conditions but also nurturing a robust ecosystem that supports them.

As part of this effort, we established a research house in Tokyo called Uzumaki House, where researchers, industry representatives, and individuals can meet, network, and collaborate in a physical space. This endeavor is operated with support from EF, and we hope it will be an effective approach to cultivating the ecosystem.

Ethereum is, at present, the closest entity to The God Protocols, both in terms of its technical components and the depth of its ecosystem.

Yet there are many challenges to achieving the ideal. Among them, censorship resistance in the face of MEV, privacy, and identifying the societal problems an ideal protocol could potentially solve are key issues moving forward.

From addressing internal problems to systematizing the societal challenges that an ideal protocol might resolve, and finally to fostering the ecosystem that supports it, our aim is to contribute to the ecosystem with a three-pronged approach. Underpinning these efforts is a commitment to building a more equitable and liberated social foundation through Ethereum.

[1] https://ethresear.ch/t/decoupling-throughput-from-local-building/22004

[2] https://nakamotoinstitute.org/library/the-god-protocols/

[3] https://titaniaresear.ch/ja/ethereum-with-io-is-god-protocols