The foundation has spent tens of millions over four years, yet the EOS ecosystem is becoming increasingly cold—how can the money mother be spent?

Vaulta Foundation (formerly EOS Network Foundation) is experiencing an unprecedented trust crisis. Since its establishment in 2021, this ecological foundation that once promised “transparent governance” has burned through tens of millions of dollars over four years, only to see token prices plummet, projects halt, and ledgers go silent. The community has begun to ask: Where did this money actually go?

The Enigma of Power Transition: The Truth Behind the Dignified Resignation

On November 12, 2025, Vaulta Foundation CEO Yves La Rose announced his departure on social media. The statement was tactful, filled with “gratitude” and “vision,” but four weeks later, the community discovered that the Foundation’s multi-signature core accounts still remained under Yves’s control, and the power had not truly been transferred.

More intriguingly, after stepping down, Yves secretly pushed for Greymass founder Aaron Cox to succeed him. The first act of Aaron’s leadership was to propose a $10 million EOS fund to continue paying core development budgets. This move raised community suspicions: Is this a normal budget arrangement, or is it a way to “extend life,” or divert remaining public funds through personnel changes?

The Black Hole of Marketing Budget: The More Spent, the Cooler the Ecosystem

According to the Foundation’s quarterly reports, Vaulta spent as much as $1.71 million on marketing in Q4 2022, followed by another $1.07 million in Q1 2023. In just half a year, nearly $2.8 million was poured into branding and PR activities.

But the results visible to the community are extremely limited—meeting participation records, Twitter follower growth, system uptime… These figures resemble PR press releases rather than the true state of the ecosystem. What are the truly important indicators? Developer growth is absent, daily on-chain activity is undisclosed, and ecosystem TVL is nearly zero.

When all financial reports only highlight “bright spots” and ignore “results,” transparency begins to slide into a black box.

The Tracking of the $5 Million EOS Grant

In June 2024, Vaulta Foundation allocated 15 million EOS to establish an “Intermediary Software Special Fund,” with the first tranche of 5 million EOS paid to the Greymass team. On-chain data shows that the flow of these funds is quite complex:

Funds first transferred from the Foundation account to a newly created Greymass account; then monthly transfers to designated accounts with notes like “Operation + Price”; subsequently, these accounts distribute to more accounts marked “Reward Payout”; most recipients quickly transfer the funds to exchanges for cashing out.

Although Greymass issued several development updates early on, there have been almost no technical成果 over the past year. Their intermediary software tools still face compatibility and stability issues and have not been widely adopted by mainstream developers.

Community questions include: Is the fund disbursement structure lacking third-party oversight? Do the timing of the grants closely coincide with Aaron’s appointment? Are these funds truly used for development?

Silence During the Price Crash

This year, EOS’s price plummeted to a low of $0.21—enough to trigger a crisis in any ecosystem. Yet Vaulta Foundation’s response has always been: “Token price is not within the Foundation’s scope.”

While this statement cannot be outright refuted, the problem is—when ecosystem indicators decline across the board and community confidence collapses, the Foundation has not discussed any stable expectations or market protection mechanisms. Instead, it announced “dissolution,” with no roadmap or transition plan.

The absence at critical moments raises questions: Is it powerlessness, indifference, or are there issues they are unwilling to face?

From Weekly Reports to Discontinuation: The Vanishing Transparency

Vaulta Foundation once touted itself as “transparent, community-driven”:

2021: Weekly progress updates 2022: Switched to monthly reports 2023: Switched to quarterly reports 2024-2025: Complete silence

Since Q1 2024, no financial reports have been released. No budget breakdowns, no project lists, no unsettled disbursement records. From intensive disclosures to gradual silence, the disappearance of transparency has almost perfectly mirrored the ecosystem’s declining heat curve.

More concerning is that many early high-profile collaborations announced by the Foundation ultimately stalled at the “communication stage,” lacking actual implementation. The promised “transparent operations” have ultimately become a silent cliff.

The Fog of Funding Programs

Vaulta has launched multiple funding initiatives, including Grant Framework, Recognition Grants, and the Pomelo Public Funding Pool. In its first quarterly report in Q4 2021, the Foundation disclosed a one-time allocation of:

• $3.5 million in Recognition Grants (average $100,000 per project)
• $1.3 million to five technical working groups
• $1.265 million supporting community autonomous organizations
• $500,000 as the first quarter’s funding pool

But this was the only time the Foundation fully disclosed the recipients of grants in a quarterly report.

Subsequently, the situation changed dramatically. From 2022 to 2023, although Grants remained the largest expenditure item (reaching 40%–60% in some quarters), the Foundation stopped disclosing: specific recipients, actual amounts received by each project, project acceptance status, and detailed fund usage.

In other words, expenditure figures are visible, but the flow of funds remains forever a mystery. How much was spent is clear; where the money went is unknown. Most funded projects, after receiving funds, update very little or go silent altogether.

The Complete Collapse of Ecosystem Trust

Vaulta Foundation once promised to advance governance reform with a “transparent, community-driven” stance, but over four years, it has gradually become more closed. From delayed power transfer, to unaccountable fund disbursements, from marketing expenses with no results, to complete silence on ecosystem funding—this is not a failure of decentralized governance but a victory of centralized decision-making.

In an ideal Web3 ecosystem that should be decentralized, questions about how funds are spent, how transparency is maintained, and how the community supervises have gone unanswered. Instead, problems multiply, and answers diminish. Vaulta’s story is a warning: when the Foundation begins to hide, the ecosystem starts to decline.