Ethereum's Governance Under Scrutiny: Vitalik Buterin's Central Role Sparks Debate

The Ethereum ecosystem faces mounting criticism over its decision-making structure, with prominent former developers challenging how the network’s direction is determined. Péter Szilágyi, who previously held a lead developer position at the Ethereum Foundation, brought these concerns into the spotlight through a letter to foundation leadership that has now become public. His central argument: Ethereum’s strategic path is shaped by a concentrated group of decision-makers and institutional investors, with project viability hinging on political ties and access rather than pure technical merit.

The Governance Challenge

Szilágyi’s critique extends beyond individual influence to systemic issues. He identified structural vulnerabilities in how funding decisions and development approvals are made—mechanisms that he argues favor those with insider connections. This raises questions about whether Ethereum’s protocol evolution reflects community consensus or narrow institutional interests.

The concerns resonate across the broader ecosystem. Sandeep Nailwal, leading the Polygon Foundation, and Andre Cronje, co-founder of Sonic Labs, have publicly articulated similar frustrations. Both cited inadequate communication channels and insufficient support infrastructure from the Ethereum Foundation as persistent obstacles to their respective projects’ advancement.

The Response

Vitalik Buterin addressed the tension by commending the Polygon Foundation’s strategic foresight in their early commitment to ZK-EVM development—a move that shifted focus from confrontation to technical recognition. This response suggests Buterin’s acknowledgment of Polygon’s contributions while sidestepping broader governance reform discussions.

The debate underscores a fundamental tension in Ethereum’s evolution: whether the network operates as a truly decentralized community or functions as a protocol shaped by key stakeholders and their relationships.