Péter Szilágyi, the core developer of Ethereum, blasted: The ETH Foundation’s pay is unfair and power is concentrated around Vitalik Buterin..
Péter Szilágyi, the core developer of Ethereum and the leader of the Geth client team, publicly disclosed today (20th) a private letter he wrote on May 22, 2024. In the letter, he expressed in detail his deep reflection on the operation of the Ethereum Foundation, the development of the Ethereum ecosystem, and his own role, revealing his three main pain points on "why Ethereum has failed for him."
(Preliminary summary: The Ethereum Foundation sold 21,000 ETH in three months and quietly obtained US$72.94 million in roadmap funds)
(Background supplement: The Ethereum Foundation released an end-to-end privacy blueprint to strengthen the DeFi and compliance foundation through a three-pronged approach)
Contents of this article
Péter, core developer of Ethereum and leader of the Geth client team Szilágyi today (20th) publicly disclosed a private letter he wrote on May 22, 2024, in which he expressed in detail his deep reflection on the operation of the Ethereum Foundation (EF), the development of the Ethereum ecosystem, and his own role. Péter said that although this was not a formal resignation statement, it revealed his three main pain points on "why Ethereum has failed for him" and attracted the attention of the community.
Since y'all spammed my timeline full of #Ethereum existential crises, here's a letter I sent to EF leadership in a year and half ago 😬.
(link in next post because Twitter…)
— Péter Szilágyi (@peter_szilagyi) October 19, 2025
Péter Szilágyi Point out three major pain points
The illusion of "leadership role": public hero, private abandonment
Szilágyi first pointed out in the letter that he felt a clear gap in his "leadership role" in the Ethereum ecosystem. He said that EF publicly positioned him as a leader within the ecosystem and emphasized in public conflicts that Ethereum valued diverse opinions; however, in private operations, he felt that he only had a "perceived leadership role."
He believes this stems from the fact that he has been deliberately targeted over the past nine years by defending Geth's image, fighting back against dishonesty, and publicly questioning powerful people, including within EF. Szilágyi described himself as being in a "lose-lose" situation: remaining silent will allow big players to reshape the protocol, which will damage Geth's core values; conversely, speaking out will damage its reputation and prevent others from profiting from Ethereum.
He attributed this to EF's policies, which became the first reason why he felt "failed" with Ethereum: he originally pursued great ideals, but easily abandoned his principles under the temptation of money.
Low salary loyalty trap: forcing away the core, the agreement is captured
The second pain point of the letter focuses on the financial treatment and incentive structure of EF employees. Szilágyi bluntly stated that working at EF was a "financial bad decision" in the long run. His total compensation in the first six years was only $625,000 (before tax, no incentives), but at the same time, the market value of ETH rose from zero to $450 billion during this period. He believes that this poses a serious problem: many of the original employees have left, seeking compensation commensurate with their value; those who have remained are "overexploited" by EF's principle orientation rather than satisfying its monetary motivations.
Szilágyi criticized EF’s leadership for this lapse and pointed out that its internal structure deliberately concealed salary information. Even though Geth's finances have improved in the past two years, he still believes that EF's low-salary strategy has forced core personnel to turn to external compensation. For example, the advisory roles of Justin Drake and Dankrad Feist involve conflicts of interest, but "accepting money is not unreasonable" - EF is "receiving the consequences."
In the past ten years, EF has deprived employees of "life-changing" opportunities, which is the second reason why it feels "failed" with Ethereum: Although the foundation was not intentional, it paved the way for the protocol to be captured through a "well-intentioned and naive" subtraction strategy.
Vitalik Moments Empire: The ideal of equality becomes an elite game
The third concern points to Ethereum’s “high-level players” and power dynamics. Szilágyi said that he has "the greatest respect" for Vitalik Buterin, but Vitalik's attention, research resources, donations and investments will directly determine the success or failure of the project; his opinions will define the allowed boundaries of the ecosystem, and the key to the gray area is to convince Vitalik. Although Ethereum advertises itself as decentralized, Vitalik has “complete indirect control.”
Over the past decade, this has further evolved into an early stage of internal power struggles, then a swarm of meetings, and ultimately the formation of a “clique” of 5-10 high-profile thought leaders who invest in and serve as advisors on all projects. New projects no longer raise funds publicly, but seek initial investment or advisory roles from the same group of people. Behind them are always the same 1-3 venture capital (VC) institutions, forming a "happy circle of friends" around Vitalik. This becomes the third reason: originally pursuing equal opportunities, it has become a power empire dominated by a small number of elites.
At the end of the letter, Szilágyi expressed that he did not know where the future would go. He does not believe that the problems facing Ethereum are reversible: EF has lost its loyalty and Vitalik has inadvertently created a ruling elite that will never let go. He complained that despite rejecting high-paying external offers and adhering to EF's "required" loyalty mentality, the community regarded it as "just a business."
