Author: Macauley Peterson, Blockworks; Translated by: Deng Tong, Jinse Finance
The Ethereum community is at a cultural crossroads, and the intense reactions to the departure of prominent contributor Max Resnick reveal deeper tensions surrounding governance and dissent. Resnick's criticisms of Ethereum's governance and scalability approaches provoked overwhelming negative responses, including accusations of being a 'Solana factory' and other personal attacks. These responses highlight broader issues within Ethereum's social layer and decision-making process.
Extremism in Ethereum
Ethereum extremism has begun to reflect some of the less constructive characteristics of Bitcoin extremism. The debate over increasingly suppressed dissent is rampant, with critics being labeled as outsiders or opponents. Resnick's criticisms, while highlighting real challenges, have also met with hostility. His communication style is often perceived as confrontational, alienating key contributors. Some in the community view his departure as a positive factor, reinforcing shared values and emphasizing that dissent must be constructive to avoid division.
This is not unique to Resnick. Others, like Jon Charbonneau, have also challenged the notion of decentralization as an abstract ideal, arguing it stifles productive debate in practice. In his blog post 'Ethereum's North Star,' Charbonneau wrote: 'If decentralization is the sole goal, then why not lower the block gas limit, decrease the number of blobs, and increase slot time? Often, shouting 'Aha! This is sacrificing decentralization!' is just used to end productive debate.'
Charbonneau emphasizes that Ethereum needs to define its unique purpose. He urges the community to adhere to long-term principles and avoid decisions driven by short-term dynamics.
Social Layer: Advantage or Disadvantage?
Ethereum's reliance on social consensus has long been hailed as a decentralized alternative to formal governance. However, this approach has its drawbacks. Even though Ethereum's core development process operates transparently and attracts a variety of stakeholders, decision-making often seems dominated by loud, influential voices on platforms like Twitter.
Core developers follow a consensus-driven process, building publicly to ensure decisions reflect a broad range of opinions. This process resists formal capture, but risks stagnation if opposing voices are excluded. Resnick regularly contributes to Eth Research, sharing insights on scalability and governance, but he has not participated in ACD calls or been heavily involved in events.
Lessons from Bitcoin
The rise of Bitcoin, including its increase to $100,000, was not solely driven by extremism. It stemmed from ongoing promotional efforts to engage governments, institutions, and the public in building a strong socio-economic narrative. In contrast, Ethereum has largely avoided real-world advocacy, focusing instead on maintaining its spirit of decentralization.
The future of Ethereum depends on a balance of belief and inclusivity. The community must recognize that mere technological advancement is insufficient—strong cultural foundations are equally important. Purity tests and unchecked extremism can stifle innovation and debate, so mechanisms to promote open dialogue without undermining decentralization must be introduced.
Ethereum's greatest strength lies in its adaptability. By addressing cultural challenges head-on, the community can retain valuable contributors and ensure Ethereum's leadership as a decentralized, inclusive ecosystem.
