Ethereum Controversy Deepens — Former Developer Claims Vitalik Controls Ecosystem

Ethereum (ETH)

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
  • Szilágyi claims EF favors a small elite circle around Vitalik Buterin.
  • Core developers were underpaid despite Ethereum’s market growth.
  • Polygon CEO also criticizes Ethereum’s exclusionary ecosystem practices.

Péter Szilágyi, who led Geth (Go Ethereum) from 2015 to 2025, publicly shared a scathing letter criticizing the Ethereum Foundation’s (EF) organizational culture. In the letter dated May 22, 2024, Szilágyi highlighted concerns over governance, compensation, and centralization within one of the world’s most influential blockchain foundations.

Szilágyi claims that while EF publicly presented him as a core contributor embodying Ethereum’s open ethos, his ideas were often dismissed internally. He also accused the Foundation of fostering a “small ruling elite” around co-founder Vitalik Buterin, which, according to him, controlled which projects and initiatives thrived in the ecosystem.

“Ethereum may be decentralized, but Vitalik absolutely has complete indirect control over it,” Szilágyi wrote, stressing the disconnect between Ethereum’s ideals and the influence wielded by a select few.

Centralization Concerns and Financial Discontent

Szilágyi also criticized the Foundation’s financial practices, stating that EF underpaid key contributors despite Ethereum’s skyrocketing market value. Over six years, he earned just $625,000 before taxes, without equity or incentives. The letter suggested that EF intentionally obscured compensation data, creating structural barriers for transparency.

This revelation has sparked community backlash, raising questions about how EF manages its billions in Ethereum holdings. Users and developers have voiced frustration over the apparent disconnect between the Foundation’s resources and the treatment of its core contributors.

Polygon CEO Weighs In

Sandeep Nailwal, CEO and co-founder of Polygon, echoed similar concerns. He criticized the Ethereum community for sidelining Polygon in major Ethereum projects while still attributing Polygon’s successes to Ethereum. Nailwal described the ecosystem as exclusionary, highlighting a growing divide between Ethereum’s founding principles and its actual governance practices.

Also Read: Holešky Testnet Retires After Fusaka Upgrade — What Ethereum Developers Need to Know

In response, Buterin praised Polygon and Nailwal for their contributions to Ethereum infrastructure, ZK-EVM research, and philanthropy, including funding initiatives like Balvi’s anti-pandemic efforts. However, neither the Ethereum Foundation nor Buterin have publicly addressed Szilágyi’s allegations directly.

What’s Next for Ethereum Governance?

The letter and ensuing debates have intensified scrutiny on Ethereum’s governance model. How EF responds could set key precedents for accountability and decentralization across blockchain projects. As the community watches closely, the controversy underscores the ongoing tension between blockchain ideals and real-world organizational dynamics.

Disclaimer: The information in this article is for general purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. The author’s views are personal and may not reflect the views of Chain Affairs. Before making any investment decisions, you should always conduct your own research. Chain Affairs is not responsible for any financial losses.