Péter Szilágyi révèle : La Fondation Ethereum tourne autour du cercle rapproché de Vitalik

Le noyau dur d'Ethereum sous le feu des critiques

Une tempête politique secoue les coulisses de la blockchain la plus influente du marché. Péter Szilágyi, figure technique majeure de l'écosystème, jette un pavé dans la mare en dénonçant les mécanismes opaques de gouvernance.

Concentration des décisions stratégiques

Les investisseurs institutionnels s'interrogent sur la résilience d'un protocole où les orientations critiques dépendraient d'un cercle restreint. Une situation qui rappelle étrangement les dérives des banques traditionnelles - mais avec des tokens à la place des actions privilégiées.

La décentralisation en question

Alors que les volumes sur les DEX atteignent des records, cette révélation frappe au cœur du narrative fondateur de la crypto. Les maximalistes Bitcoin ne manqueront pas de souligner l'ironie : la deuxième capitalisation boursière reproduirait les schémas qu'elle prétait combattre.

Un test décisif pour l'adoption institutionnelle

Les FSA japonais et autres régulateurs scrutent ces développements d'un œil critique. La transparence étant le nouveau graal de la finance digitale, Ethereum devra faire la preuve de sa maturité gouvernancele - ou voir son leadership technologique érodé par des concurrents plus démocratiques.

Szilágyi questions Ethereum’s leadership and internal politics

Péter said being seen as a leader only came from “spending the last nine years maintaining Geth’s image in public” and for “having the recklessness to call out people of power.”

But Péter said every time he pushed back against influential insiders, “more voices came to their defence,” leaving him isolated and drained. He said the Foundation treats developers like expendable tools, “a useful fool in a lose‑lose situation.”

He added that even though Geth is one of the oldest teams in the ecosystem, there’s little appreciation for their role. “We’re happy you built an empire for us, now move aside and let the people who can make us money take the lead,” Péter quoted from social sentiment online.

The programmer said ethereum lost its principles once money entered the equation.

He described how Foundation politics and “client diversity” debates are driven by researchers and insiders pushing favored projects that “fit the desired direction better.”

According to Péter, those who oppose the current structure risk being sidelined. “Every outburst eats into my social credits,” he wrote, saying the Foundation’s culture discourages dissent while pretending to celebrate it.

Szilágyi details pay gaps and calls Foundation a breeding ground for capture

Péter then moved to his second major issue; money. According to him, working at the Foundation “is a bad financial decision,” even though Ethereum’s market cap rose from zero to $450 billion.

Péter revealed that his total six‑year pay was $625,000 before taxes and incentives, describing it as proof that “workers” were underpaid while others profited. He said the Foundation “set up the protocol for capture” by forcing honest developers to seek outside income.

Péter cited the case of Justin Drake and Dankrad Feist, two Ethereum researchers who took advisory roles with external projects, calling it “an insane conflict of interest” but adding that “the Foundation made its bed, now come the consequences.” He said the Foundation “took away life‑changing money from every single one of their employees” and accused leadership of hiding internal pay data.

He also quoted Vitalik himself saying, “if someone’s not complaining that they’re paid too little, then they’re paid too much,” using it to argue that the Foundation deliberately exploited idealistic employees. “The Foundation, led by Vitalik, went above and beyond to avoid paying their people fairly,” Péter said. He blamed that culture for pushing key contributors toward outside incentives, weakening the network’s independence.

Szilágyi says Vitalik’s influence defines success in Ethereum

Péter’s third major point was about influence and control. He said Vitalik’s attention and approval determine which projects thrive, whether through his “donations, research direction, or investments.”

In Péter’s words:- “Ethereum may be decentralized, but Vitalik absolutely has complete indirect control over it.”

He said this influence evolved into a small elite group that includes 5–10 recurring figures, high‑profile Ethereum “thought leaders” who hold stakes in nearly every new project, from Farcaster to other startups. “To become successful, you just need to get the correct 5–10 people around Vitalik, or even him, to commit,” he wrote.

According to Péter, new projects don’t launch publicly anymore. Instead, they secure early investments from the same small group, who also sit on each other’s boards or serve as advisors. “If you can get Bankless to invest, they’ll sing odes on their podcast,” he said, describing a self‑reinforcing ecosystem where friends fund and promote each other’s projects.

Péter concluded that Ethereum “set out to create equal opportunity” but instead “became a ruling elite of friends and investors.” He said every successful project now links back to the same circle and the same 1–3 venture funds, arguing that Ethereum’s direction boils down to one thing; your relationship with Vitalik.

Péter said he doesn’t believe the system can be fixed. “Vitalik, with all his good intents, created the ruling elite who will never relinquish control,” he wrote. “You either play ball or get sidelined.”

Péter said he feels trapped between staying loyal to Ethereum and rejecting what it has become, admitting he doesn’t “see a bright future” for himself inside the Foundation.

Sharpen your strategy with mentorship + daily ideas - 30 days free access to our trading program