Vitalik Buterin forcefully responds to Ethereum Foundation critics | "I haven't sold a single ETH in the last month”

24 days ago

Criticism can happen at any time, especially if there are suspicions that someone in particular is affecting the market. It can also be the case that the critic's sole aim is to ruin that person's reputation.

This becomes more significant when an influencer is the one making these accusations. In other words, it carries more weight because there is an audience behind them who then joins in to judge the matter. In this case, there is currently pressure being generated towards Vitalik Buterin as well as the Ethereum Foundation. But, what is being talked about?

Some of these influencers are mentioning that he is responsible for Ethereum going through a bearish trend, or at least has had an impact on its price, stating it emphatically and wanting it to be an absolute truth. It was then that Vitalik responded to them through the X social network rejecting these accusations, mentioning that he has not even sold a single ETH and that in reality his holdings increased.

From Hexologist31 on X

Another accusation is about how funds are being managed, such as what happened with a transfer worth $94 million in Ethereum to the Kraken exchange. This actually constituted a treasury management move, aiming to reduce impacts on the market. Additionally, Vitalik strongly confirms that the movements are also intended to pay researchers and developers through the Ethereum Foundation.

Given this situation, Vitalik had to go on record about the responsibilities these individuals have, listing the most important ones at the beginning and developing the following ones in a thread.

In these first three, it is conveyed that part of the responsibilities include avoiding negative impacts on Ethereum in the year, reducing fees, and improving transaction speed below 30 seconds. Something that has been partially achieved, but it could still vary, especially regarding the fees topic.

From NeoCallss on X

One of the questions raised was why ETH was not staked in a way that rewards could be used to cover costs. This may seem like a good idea at first glance. However, Vitalik mentions the fact that doing so could divide the community, and at some point, those with staked funds might have to choose a side after a compromising hard fork happens. This is why this solution is being avoided to prevent neutrality issues.

As a suggestion, Vitalik mentions a solution that makes a lot of sense. In this case, the foundation could access certain Ethereum grants, enabling beneficiaries to use them for staking for a period they deem appropriate. In a way, it is a good strategy since there will be no major risks of an early sale process as beneficiaries will seek to maximize rewards through staking due to the estimated yield.