Ethereum's 10-Year Power Shift: Three Internal Shake-Ups and the Gradual Move Beyond the Vitalik Era

·

Ethereum has reached a pivotal moment in its evolution. A decade after its inception, the blockchain that redefined smart contracts and decentralized applications is navigating what many call its "midlife crisis." Once seen as an unstoppable force poised to overtake Bitcoin, Ethereum now faces stagnation in price growth, rising competition from blockchains like Solana, and internal structural challenges.

As the network matures, so too does its governance model—shifting from a centralized figurehead-driven system to a more distributed, community-led framework. This transition didn't happen overnight. Over the past 10 years, Ethereum has undergone three major internal restructurings, each reshaping its leadership, ideology, and trajectory.

Let’s explore how Ethereum evolved from a visionary idea into a global digital asset—and how it’s now attempting to thrive beyond the shadow of its most iconic figure: Vitalik Buterin.

Phase One: The Rise and Fall of the "Eight Princes"

In the early days of Ethereum (2014–2015), the project was driven by a collective of eight founding members—an arrangement some likened to a digital-age "Eight Princes" council, designed to prevent autocratic rule.

Vitalik Buterin, then just 19 years old, had the initial vision. He invited ten developers who responded to his call and selected five as core leaders: himself, Anthony Di Iorio, Charles Hoskinson, Mihai Alisie, and Amir Chetrit. Later, Joseph Lubin, Gavin Wood, and Jeffrey Wilcke joined, forming the official group of eight co-founders widely recognized today.

👉 Discover how blockchain pioneers shape the future—start exploring here.

But harmony didn’t last long.

The team quickly fractured over fundamental questions: Should Ethereum be a for-profit company or a nonprofit foundation? Should it accept venture capital or fund itself through public crowdsales?

These debates culminated in a fateful meeting at a spaceship-shaped house in Zug, Switzerland, in June 2014. Vitalik ultimately chose a decentralized, nonprofit path—a decision that led to immediate departures.

By year-end, only four remained: Vitalik, Gavin Wood, Mihai Alisie, and Jeffrey Wilcke.

This marked Ethereum’s first major shake-up—a painful but defining moment that set the tone for its ideological foundation: open, decentralized, and community-driven.

Phase Two: The Exodus of Key Technologists

With half the founding team gone, Ethereum entered a new phase—one defined by technical expansion but also growing internal tensions.

The 2014 DevCon 0 conference in Berlin brought together developers for the first time in person. Photos from the event show Vitalik and Gavin Wood standing side by side—a symbol of unity soon to be broken.

Gavin Wood, author of the Ethereum Yellow Paper and lead developer of the Parity client, believed Ethereum needed stronger engineering leadership. When Vitalik resisted centralization, Gavin departed in October 2015 to found Parity Technologies and later launch Polkadot—one of Ethereum’s most formidable competitors.

His exit weakened Ethereum’s technical execution capabilities. Coordination among global Geth client developers became fragmented, slowing progress.

Mihai Alisie and Jeffrey Wilcke followed suit. Alisie left amicably after helping establish the Swiss legal structure. Wilcke stepped down post-The DAO hack in 2018, handing over Geth maintenance to Péter Szilágyi and shifting focus to personal projects.

As these figures exited, Vitalik found himself increasingly isolated—often working late nights in Berlin offices. What began as a collaborative dream had become a one-man show.

The "God Mode" Era: Vitalik’s Unmatched Influence

With most original contributors gone, Vitalik emerged as Ethereum’s undisputed leader—so much so that many referred to him as “V God.”

Unlike Bitcoin’s decentralized off-chain governance, Ethereum relied heavily on Vitalik’s personal authority. While decisions were supposed to be community-driven, his endorsement often ensured rapid adoption—such as during the 2016 DAO hard fork, which passed with 85% support largely due to his advocacy.

Critics weren’t silent. Lane Rettig, a former core developer, called Ethereum’s governance “failed,” describing it as expert rule by a small technical elite. Chinese contributor Ajian echoed this sentiment, criticizing the Ethereum Foundation (EF) for wielding unchecked power—eventually leaving for the Bitcoin community.

Even ConsenSys published research suggesting centralization risks within Ethereum’s ecosystem, noting disproportionate control over protocol upgrades and funding allocation.

Over time, especially in Chinese communities, people began rejecting the term “V God.” The myth was fading; the man behind the icon was human after all.

Growing Pains: The Foundation Finds Its Feet

The early Ethereum Foundation was chaotic—staffed with interim appointees like Kelley Becker and Frithjof Weinert. It wasn’t until 2015 that Ming Chan became Executive Director, bringing stability.

New board members added global expertise:

This period saw critical developments:

On July 30, 2015, Ethereum went live—a milestone captured in a historic photo of core developers in Berlin. This moment marked the second major restructuring: from founder-led to foundation-supported development.

Phase Three: Midlife Crisis and the Push for Decentralization

From 2018 onward, Ethereum entered its third transformation—driven by scalability upgrades and cultural shifts.

Under Aya Miyaguchi’s leadership (who replaced Ming Chan), EF evolved:

Key figures rose to prominence:

Between DeFi summers (2019), NFT booms (2021), and the successful Merge to PoS (2022), Ethereum solidified its dominance—even as competitors gained ground.

Yet today, ETH faces stagnation. While BTC hits new highs and SOL surges ahead, ETH trades sideways between $2300–$3000—a sign of growing pains at scale.

Ideological Drift: Is the Foundation Becoming a "Congress"?

A deeper issue has emerged: ideological capture.

In May 2024, researchers Justin Drake and Dankrad Feist revealed they were advisors to EigenLayer—a protocol built atop Ethereum—receiving potentially life-changing amounts of EIGEN tokens.

Though they claimed neutrality, the optics were poor. When top EF researchers consult for projects with billions at stake, can they remain impartial?

👉 See how next-gen blockchain innovation is being shaped today.

The foundation risks becoming a digital Congress, where EIPs (Ethereum Improvement Proposals) are influenced by financial incentives rather than pure technical merit. Projects seek “lobbyists” within EF; VCs leverage relationships for early access.

This trend reflects Ethereum’s maturation—but also its vulnerability to institutional capture.

Letting Go: Can Ethereum Survive Without Vitalik?

Vitalik never wanted to be a leader. As his father recalled, he initially saw himself merely as someone with a cool idea.

But others pushed him forward. He became a symbol—a young genius reshaping finance and technology.

Now 30 years old, Vitalik sees change differently. At Zuzalu in Montenegro or a Korean hackathon, he’s no longer the youngest mind in the room. He’s become aware that technology doesn’t build communities—people do.

He’s stepping back—not disappearing, but evolving into a mentor role. As he put it:

“I’m playing a completely different role now. It’s time for the next generation to take up the mantle.”

And they already are.

With 99 active core developers (per Electric Capital) and over 250,000 contributors, Ethereum is one of the most decentralized developer ecosystems in crypto. New leaders have emerged across research, client development, and Layer 2 innovation.

FAQ: Your Questions About Ethereum’s Evolution

Q: Why did so many Ethereum co-founders leave early?
A: Divergent visions about commercialization vs. decentralization caused irreconcilable splits. Vitalik chose a nonprofit model; others pursued profit-driven ventures like Cardano or ConsenSys.

Q: Is Ethereum too centralized around Vitalik?
A: Historically yes—but this is changing. While Vitalik still holds influence, real decision-making power now lies with diverse teams working on clients, research, and Layer 2s.

Q: What is "Danksharding" and why does it matter?
A: Proposed by Dankrad Feist, Danksharding is Ethereum’s roadmap for scaling via data availability layers. It enables massive throughput while preserving decentralization—key for future growth.

Q: How is EF different now compared to 2015?
A: Then: central hub for all development. Now: facilitator funding independent teams, hosting coordination calls, and supporting ecosystem-wide collaboration without direct control.

Q: Can Ethereum succeed without Vitalik?
A: Yes. The network’s strength now lies in its broad developer base and modular architecture. Vitalik catalyzed it—but thousands sustain it daily.

Q: What are the risks of EF “Congressization”?
A: Financial incentives could bias EIP evaluations. To mitigate this, greater transparency around affiliations and structured ethics guidelines are needed.

👉 Join the next wave of decentralized innovation—explore opportunities now.

Ethereum’s journey mirrors any maturing technology: idealism gives way to complexity; singular vision yields to collective stewardship. The goal is no longer just survival—but sustainable evolution beyond any single individual.

We may soon reach a point where Ethereum thrives not because of Vitalik—but despite him.

And that might be its greatest achievement yet.

Core Keywords:

Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum Foundation, decentralization, Ethereum 2.0, Danksharding, core developers, governance