Vitalik’s Small Ethereum Foundation Tests Execution Requests for ETH Holders

Following the departure of at least nine senior Ethereum Foundation (EF) members in 2026 and the community’s longstanding complaints about EF-linked ETH sales, Vitalik Buterin has posted his thoughts on the Foundation’s direction.

For Buterin, EF should become smaller, more opinionated, and less central to Ethereum’s future.

He said this reflected only his views and that his power within the organization continues to decline while the board expands and that is what he wants.

The controversy is currently focused on the Ethereum Foundation’s ETH sales, financial discipline, and whether an outside group can take over the growth capabilities owners desire for EF.

This framework puts Buterin in direct conflict with a vocal segment of ETH holders who want the foundation to act more like a growth-oriented institution, compete more aggressively with Solana, build the story of ETH as an asset, coordinate business development, and strengthen execution.

He described EF as “one node with a clear purpose, alongside other nodes,” and said that longevity should be prioritized over breadth, a choice that is clearly tied to reducing the volume of ETH sold.

Aya Miyaguchi is running much of the transition, and Buterin’s own opinions center on technical issues.

The Ethereum Foundation holds about 0.16% of all ETH, well below the 10% to 50% foundation allocation that Buterin says is typical for other blockchain projects. In April, the Ethereum Foundation’s staking amount reached approximately 69,500 ETH, nearly reaching its goal of 70,000 ETH and shifting some of its funds to yield generation.

The estimated annual staking revenue of $3.9 million to $5.4 million is significantly lower than historical EF operating costs of nearly $100 million per year, and staking leaves the need for ETH sales intact.

Therefore, the Ethereum Foundation’s finances continue to rely on either reduced spending, continued ETH sales, external funding, or a combination of all three.

Less sales of ETH under these circumstances means that the EF becomes smaller and narrower, not only by philosophical design, but also by financial necessity.

The Ethereum Foundation is miniaturized by design

The deeper argument in Buterin’s post is threaded through the March 13 Ethereum Foundation Directive, which formalized censorship resistance, open source, privacy, and security as Ethereum’s core organizational identity.

The mandate describes the EF as one of many custodians, and the success of the EF is measured by reducing dependence on the EF over time.

Buterin’s post stated that the EF will treat the promotion, coordination, and business development of ETH assets as tasks to be absorbed by external organizations, while focusing specifically on activities that only the EF can reliably provide, some of which Buterin says are newly possible through an AI-backed proof system.

Buterin used the Google analogy to explain how a single institution that takes a more idealistic stance creates more lasting value in a broader field than all institutions that bow to popular pressures.

As the technology landscape drifts toward financial capture and surveillance, Ethereum’s co-founder said EF positioning itself as resistant to such pressures creates more value for Ethereum than EF competing as another growth-oriented institution.

Community voices argued that Ethereum needs an ETH-focused organization whose assets win, execute hard, and have a voice in the institutional market. Buterin acknowledged that supporting ETH assets will require work that EF allocates to external organizations.

Buterin frames the Ethereum Foundation’s recent brain drain as a substantial diversification needed to attract outside capital for important tasks, leaving unanswered whether outside capital and institutions will materialize quickly enough to absorb that work.

Ethereum subtraction test

A smaller, more ideological EF would reduce the sale of ETH treasuries, preserve the technical roadmap through CROPS-focused work, and give Ethereum’s base layer the credibility that a growth-oriented foundation trades off.

An external entity, funded by private capital and ETH partner institutions, will absorb the asset narrative, business development and coordination functions vacated by EF.

Ethereum is decentralized in practice and in protocol, and ETH benefits from a cleaner institutional structure, with less pressure on Treasury sales at the base layer while a competitive field of external groups drives adoption independently.

Mr. Buterin’s formal validation ambitions, interim minimization efforts, and lean consensus research create the kind of technical depth that institutional investors and developers use to price long-term positions.

When EFs lose institutional knowledge faster than outside groups can absorb it, Buterin’s decentralization theory becomes a brain drain disguised as philosophy.

Upgrade timelines have been staggered to parallel departures, and the organizations Buterin hopes will fill the growth gap will either form slowly or arrive with insufficient capital and coordination to replace what EF has spent a decade building.

With historical operating costs of nearly $100 million, staking generates between $3.9 million and $5.4 million per year, and “selling less ETH” will lead to reduced spending and accelerate exits before external institutions can certainly intervene.

ETH holders see Solana attracting institutional investors through the narrative of a centrally regulated asset and read the EF contraction as a sign of weak execution.

Buterin concluded his post by saying that the EF is a smaller ship than previous years, with more assertive opinions, but one that will last longer. Meanwhile, ETH holders who have spent years seeking a bigger ship are being told that Ethereum requires a completely different kind of ship.

Buterin’s little ship is betting on whether Ethereum can outsource growth without outsourcing urgency.