Setting "suicide" rules for itself: What is the Ethereum Foundation after?

Author: KarenZ, Foresight News

On the evening of March 13, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) Board of Directors released a mission statement called the “EF Mandate.”

When you open this mission statement, you might wonder if you’ve entered the wrong set—full of stars, elves, wizards, and layouts resembling anime posters. Beneath this flashy exterior lies the current “ideological blueprint” of the Ethereum ecosystem.

TL;DR

• EF’s core positioning: protectors, not rulers. EF’s ultimate goal is to pass the “Walkaway Test”—even if the Ethereum Foundation disbands tomorrow, the Ethereum network can still operate flawlessly.
• CROPS is the fundamental rule: Any technical development must meet four attributes—Censorship Resistance, Open Source, Privacy, and Security. All four are indispensable; no development priority can override them.
• EF’s philosophy: The foundation simplifies itself so Ethereum becomes more resilient. When the ecosystem matures enough, EF will gradually delegate authority.
• What not to do: Avoid acting as “kingmakers,” rating agencies, marketing firms promoting hype, or turning Ethereum into a “big casino.”
• Ultimate vision: Looking 1,000 years into the future, providing a “digital sanctuary” free from exploitation by power, capital, AI, or even family.

What problems does Ethereum aim to solve?

EF believes that in the digital age, two infrastructure-level needs are fundamental: controlling your own data, identity, and assets (self-sovereignty), and collaborating with others without being “cut off” (sovereign-cooperative coordination).

Focusing only on the first point is enough to run local applications; only on the second, traditional internet suffices. Ethereum’s unique value lies in achieving both simultaneously.

The declaration states: Ethereum exists so that no one can “rug” you—whether it’s the government, companies, institutions, or AI.

Around this goal, EF introduced an acronym: CROPS. This term appears 32 times in the declaration.

• Censorship Resistance: No one can stop you from doing legal activities; even under external pressure, cryptography keeps neutrality.
• Open Source & Free: All code and rules are open; no hidden black boxes.
• Privacy: Your data belongs to you, not the platform. You decide what to share and with whom.
• Security: Protect both the system and users from technical failures and coercion.

These four attributes are defined as an “inseparable whole” in the document—top priority, non-negotiable bottom line.

EF’s stance is clear: it’s better to proceed slowly but get these right from day one. Once abandoned, it’s nearly impossible to regain.

What does the foundation do? What does it not do?

EF aims to make itself “redundant” as the ultimate measure of success.

The document mentions a term called “walkaway test”: if EF disappears tomorrow, can Ethereum continue to run and evolve on its own? EF’s goal is to make the answer “yes.”

Therefore, EF practices a “subtracting development” philosophy: focusing on key areas that no one else can or wants to do—core protocol upgrades, long-term technical research, public safety. When a community in a certain area can take over, EF hands it off, further reducing its influence.

At the same time, EF has a long “list of things not to do,” sounding like a serious disclaimer: not a company, not a kingmaker, not an accreditation body, not a product studio, not a marketing firm, not an owner, not a government agency, not a casino, not an opportunist.

How does EF decide when there’s no clear answer?

It’s about principles: CROPS, sovereignty, the philosophy of subtraction. But what if specific issues arise? This chapter provides the answer.

It’s like EF’s “decision algorithm”: when faced with two options, how to choose without betraying the original intent?

• When choosing technical solutions, pick the one that “won’t cause bottlenecks in the future,” even if it’s slower now. For example, in transaction propagation: one solution is high-performance but relies on private relays (whitelist), another is decentralized but slower. EF might prefer the latter because the former, once implemented, makes future decentralization unlikely.
• When designing or evaluating proposals, don’t just look at the immediate layer—consider impacts on other layers. Some solutions seem fine alone and align with CROPS, but in the broader ecosystem, they might create new problems. Solving one issue shouldn’t create ten others.
• User security is crucial, but don’t make decisions for users. Provide tools for users to defend themselves—never paternalistically restrict or deprive users of autonomy under the guise of “protection.” For example, some wallets default to “security mode,” secretly block certain contracts, direct users to specific platforms, or use opaque AI to judge “risky operations,” even secretly collecting user data—all of which EF opposes. True protection involves providing verifiable filtering tools and transparent black-and-white lists; all tools, including AI components, should prioritize privacy.
• If intermediaries are unavoidable, lower barriers and leave room for alternatives: reduce entry thresholds, promote competition, and ensure users have “no intermediary” options that are practical and implementable.
• When supporting teams, focus on actual technical choices rather than social hype. Beware of projects claiming CROPS but secretly using closed-source core components, whitelist restrictions, or guiding users along fixed paths.

The ideal is lofty, but reality is tough

This declaration is powerful, but real-world challenges never stop.

Does this document represent full consensus or just the ideals of a few authors? Would it still hold if EF changed personnel? Who oversees its implementation?

More pragmatically:

• EF’s operational funds largely depend on ETH holdings. When ETH prices fall, budgets shrink. “Not caring about the price” is a matter of discipline, not financial reality.
• CROPS rules are ideal standards, but the world doesn’t always follow CROPS.
• Most users care about speed, cost, and usability.
• EF insists on “CROPS from day one,” but does this make Ethereum lag behind more “pragmatic” competitors in user experience and commercialization?
• How to evaluate EF’s “doing” and “not doing”? How to hold it accountable? How to judge the quality of “coordination”?

Community debates: Punk ideals vs. practical reality

Less than 24 hours after the release, community feedback has polarized:

Critics:

• Eigen Labs researcher Kydo directly states that EF’s current direction has done a 180°, overturning previous support for stablecoins, institutional entry, and RWA, marginalizing the most marketable applications.
• Forward Ind. chairman complains: “They build whatever they want, not what you want”—accusing EF of building purely based on idealism, ignoring community and market needs.
• Pavel Paramonov, founder of Hazeflow, calls it “another pile of ideological nonsense” and says it’s unclear what Ethereum’s next concrete direction is.

Supporters:

• Namefi founder Zainan Victor Zhou believes this is about constraints on EF organization, not restrictions on the entire ecosystem.
• Columbia Business School professor Omid Malekan points out that CROPS is precisely what keeps Ethereum ahead in finance—it offers real “access + verifiability + property rights.”

In response to the controversy, Vitalik personally clarified: this “is not surprising to many,” and it’s the direction EF has been contemplating for months. EF’s role is to safeguard Ethereum, while the broader ecosystem takes on other responsibilities—marking a new chapter.

The declaration ends with an Italian quote: “E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle”—from Dante’s “Inferno,” meaning “And then we emerged to see the stars again.”

EF also created a meme titled “SOURCE SEPPUKU LICENSE,” with the caption: “If the foundation fails to uphold its solemn promises to Ethereum, let it face the consequences and self-terminate.”

EF compares itself to a traveler through hell, committed to reaching the “stars of digital freedom,” even amid hardships and doubts. Time will tell if it succeeds.