Foundation’s new mandate sparks debate about its role, priorities

The Ethereum Foundation’s new mandate — a sweeping document released Friday to clarify the organization’s role and principles — sparked a torrent of reactions, with supporters praising it as a long-overdue articulation of the blockchain’s ethos and critics saying it reinforces the foundation’s hands-off approach at a time when Ethereum needs stronger leadership to meet the growing needs of institutions.

The 38-page document lays out what the foundation described as a constitutional guide to its mission, emphasizing its role as a neutral steward rather than a centralized authority. The mandate frames the foundation’s job as maintaining Ethereum as a decentralized and resilient infrastructure while supporting the protocol layer and public goods across the ecosystem.

The document arrived at a pivotal moment for Ethereum. The network has matured into one of the world’s largest crypto ecosystems, and the foundation itself has gone through leadership changes and debates over how actively it should steer development.

Over the weekend, reactions on X quickly divided into two camps.

Critics: Not focused on products and institutions

Critics were quick to argue the mandate was overly philosophical and failed to address Ethereum’s need to compete for real-world adoption — particularly as institutional interest in blockchain grows.

Dankrad Feist, a former Ethereum Foundation researcher and key contributor to Ethereum’s scaling roadmap, said the document does little to address practical business development concerns about how the ecosystem serves real users.

“The fundamental problems remain: there are very few voices in ACD caring about real world Ethereum usage. There is nobody doing Ethereum BD (everyone else who is doing this also has their own separate interests),” he wrote in a post on X, referring to the two-weekly “all core developers” call.

Others suggested the mandate risks reinforcing a status quo in which the foundation holds significant soft influence without clearly defined responsibilities.

Yuga Cohler, an engineer at Coinbase, raised concerns the foundation may be focusing too heavily on ideological principles at a time when Ethereum faces increasing competition for institutional capital.

“Just as Netscape wasted time on a rewrite from version 4 to 6 at a time when Microsoft was absolutely killing them, the EF insists on focusing on cypherpunk values at a pivotal time when the institutions are finally coming onchain – often to other networks,” he wrote. “An EF determined to win would focus on how to make Ethereum the best chain for finance. That’s not what it’s doing today.”

Supporters: A clear statement of values

Others in the community welcomed the mandate as a reaffirmation of the network’s foundational principles.

Chris Perkins, president and managing partner at crypto investment firm CoinFund, said the document helps clarify the foundation’s purpose as a nonprofit steward of the ecosystem.

“The @ethereumfndn is a non-profit. Remember this. It makes sense for it to focus on vision, values and stewardship. I think its goals (censorship resistant, open source, private, and secure–CROPS) make sense,” he said in a post on X.

Taylor Monahan, a former Metamask employee and longtime Ethereum contributor, similarly described the mandate as a needed reminder of the foundation’s role, pushing back on critics who said the organization needs to operate like a product company.

“Users do not use blockchains. They use products. The EF is not building a product. They are building a blockchain. A platform. That allows anyone to permissionlessly build whatever the f** they want,” she wrote in her post. “I know it’s confusing bc there are a lot of shallow, single-purpose blockchains out there.”

Infrastructure firms in the Ethereum ecosystem also voiced support for the mandate.

Nethermind, a company that develops one of blockchain’s core client software implementations, said the document reflects many of the properties institutional buyers already look for when evaluating blockchain infrastructure.

“The EF Mandate codifies the properties institutional procurement already evaluates: operational resilience (security), data protection (privacy), no vendor lock-in (open source), and platform neutrality (censorship resistance),” the firm wrote in a post. “The @ethereumfndn protects the protocol. @Nethermind builds what institutions deploy on it.”

Supporters largely framed the mandate as a reaffirmation of Ethereum’s long-standing philosophy: maintaining a minimal base layer while enabling innovation at the application and infrastructure levels.

The broader debate

The debate surrounding the mandate reflects a deeper question about Ethereum’s identity as it grows.

The Ethereum Foundation has historically positioned itself as a coordinator of research, funding and ecosystem development, not a central governing authority. The new mandate appears designed to reinforce that philosophy, emphasizing principles such as censorship resistance, open-source development, privacy and security.

But as Ethereum becomes increasingly significant to global finance and digital infrastructure, questions about who — if anyone — speaks for the network, and how decisions are made, have become harder to avoid.

Read more: Ethereum Foundation publishes new mandate defining its role, core principles