Author: Macauley Peterson, Blockworks; Translated by: Deng Tong, Jinse Finance
The Ethereum community stands at a cultural crossroads, and the intense reaction to the departure of prominent contributor Max Resnick reveals deeper tensions surrounding governance and dissent. Resnick's critiques of Ethereum's governance and scalability approach have elicited overwhelming negative responses, including accusations of labeling it as the 'Solana factory' and other personal attacks. These responses highlight broader issues within Ethereum's social layer and decision-making processes.
Extremism in Ethereum
Ethereum extremism has begun to reflect some of the less constructive characteristics of Bitcoin extremism. The debate over dissent is increasingly suppressed, with critics labeled as outsiders or opponents. Resnick's critiques, while highlighting genuine challenges, have also met with hostility. His communication style is often perceived as adversarial, 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 idea of decentralization as an abstract ideal, arguing that it stifles productive debates in practice. Charbonneau wrote in his 'North Star of Ethereum' blog post: 'If decentralization is the only goal, why not lower the block gas limit, reduce the number of blobs, and increase time slot durations? Often, shouting ‘Aha, this is sacrificing decentralization!’ is merely used to end productive discussions.'
Charbonneau emphasizes the need for Ethereum to define its unique purpose. He urges the community to adhere to long-term principles, avoiding 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 if Ethereum's core development process operates transparently and attracts diverse stakeholders, decision-making often seems dominated by loud and influential voices on platforms like Twitter.
Core developers follow a consensus-driven process to publicly build and ensure decisions reflect a broad range of opinions. This process resists formal capture, but there is a risk of 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 surge to $100,000, is driven not solely by extremism. It stems from sustained advocacy efforts that engage governments, institutions, and the public in building a strong socio-economic narrative. In contrast, Ethereum has largely avoided real-world advocacy and focused instead on maintaining its spirit of decentralization.
The future of Ethereum depends on balancing belief and inclusivity. The community must recognize that technological advancements alone are insufficient—strong cultural foundations are equally important. Purity tests and unchecked extremism can stifle innovation and debate, so mechanisms that foster open dialogue without compromising decentralization must be introduced.
The biggest advantage of Ethereum lies in its adaptability. By proactively addressing cultural challenges, the community can retain valuable contributors and ensure Ethereum's leadership as a decentralized and inclusive ecosystem.
