A timeline of the Ethereum Foundation's ongoing shakeup

I have spent a lot of time lately watching the Ethereum Foundation. For years, it has operated as this weird, semi-mysterious entity that everyone relies on but nobody quite understands. It is not a company, it is not a government, but it holds the keys to the most used smart contract platform in the world. Lately, things have been changing inside the EF, and if you are building on Ethereum, you need to pay attention to the shift.

The End of the Foundation as We Knew It

For a long time, the Ethereum Foundation acted as the central hub for everything. It managed the branding, the research, the core development funding, and the social layer. But being the center of a decentralized ecosystem is a contradiction that eventually breaks. We are seeing that breakage happen in real-time. The EF is currently in the middle of a massive internal restructuring aimed at thinning itself out.

We have seen a sequence of departures and shifts that indicate a move toward a more modular organizational structure. The goal seems to be turning the EF into a pure research shop rather than an operational giant. This matters because for years, developers complained that the EF was a bottleneck. If you wanted a grant or a change to the core protocol, you had to navigate a specific social circle. That is finally starting to change, but the transition is messy.

Why the Shakeup is Happening Now

The timing is not accidental. Ethereum has successfully transitioned to Proof of Stake, and the roadmap for Danksharding and L2 scaling is largely set in stone. The heavy lifting of the initial architecture is done. Now, the EF is facing pressure from two sides: the regulators who want to know who is in charge, and the community that wants the foundation to get out of the way.

By shedding operational weight, the EF is trying to become harder to hit. If they do not lead the marketing, they cannot be held responsible for the market. If they do not control the majority of the developers, they cannot be accused of centralizing the network. It is a survival move, but it is also a necessary evolution for a network that claims to be the world's computer.

The Researcher vs. The Builder

One of the most significant parts of this timeline involves how researchers are moving into the private sector. We have seen top-tier talent from the EF take roles at L2 startups or launch their own ventures. From a builder perspective, this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, the intellectual capital is being distributed across the ecosystem. On the other hand, it creates massive conflicts of interest.

When an EF researcher moves to an L2, do they still have an outsized influence on EIPs that benefit that specific L2? This is the skepticism we have to maintain. The EF is trying to solve this by creating more formal boundaries, but in a small industry, those boundaries are often just suggestions. As a founder, you have to watch where the talent is flowing to see where the next protocol advantages will be baked in.

The Funding Gap

One of the biggest concerns with this shakeup is the shift in how grants are handled. Historically, the EF was the primary backer for non-commercial public goods. As they pivot to a more hands-off approach, there is a legitimate fear that critical infrastructure will be underfunded. We are seeing a move toward ecosystem-led funding, where L2s and larger dApps take over the responsibility of keeping the lights on.

I am skeptical of this. L2s are profit-seeking entities. They will fund public goods that benefit their specific stack. If the EF stops being the neutral backer of boring, foundational tech, we might see the protocol fragment into different silos. This is the risk of the foundation getting too small, too fast.

The Governance Paradox

The timeline of these changes also highlights a core problem in crypto: how do you govern something that has no boss? The EF is trying to solve this by disappearing. By slowly removing its influence, it forces the community to step up. But as we have seen with other DAO-led projects, "the community" is often just a handful of large token holders or noisy voices on social media.

The shakeup at the EF is an experiment in institutional exit. They are trying to prove that Ethereum can survive without its original guardians. For builders, this means the safety net is gone. You can no longer rely on a centralized foundation to bail out the ecosystem or provide the definitive vision for the next five years. You have to build your own path.

What Builders Should Take Away

This restructuring is a signal that the "early days" of Ethereum are officially over. The foundation is no longer your partner; it is becoming a library of research. If you are starting a project today, you need to understand that the power centers have moved. They are now located in the major L2s and the independent research collectives.

• Stop waiting for EF approval: The path to getting things done no longer goes through a few specific directors at the foundation.
• Watch the researcher migration: Follow where the core devs are going. Their new homes will likely define the technical standards of the next cycle.
• Engage with ecosystem grants: The money is moving from the EF to the L2 treasuries. Adapt your funding strategy accordingly.
• Expect more volatility in core direction: Without a strong central foundation, the roadmap may become more contentious as different factions compete for influence.

The Ethereum Foundation shakeup isn't just internal corporate drama. It is a fundamental shift in how the largest ecosystem in crypto operates. It is an attempt to finally achieve the decentralization that everyone has been talking about for a decade. It won't be pretty, and it won't be fast, but it is happening. As a founder, you can either complain about the lack of leadership or you can step into the vacuum. I suggest the latter.

Read the original at CoinDesk →