Title: Ethereum Veteran Claims Vitalik Buterin Exercises ‘Full Indirect Control’ Over Network
The recent remarks by Péter Szilágyi, one of Ethereum’s longest-serving core developers and the lead behind Geth (Go Ethereum), have sparked a wave of commentary and concern within the blockchain community. Szilágyi openly criticized the Ethereum Foundation, alleging a lack of transparency and a tendency to sideline dissenting developers. Among his most striking claims was that Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin holds “complete indirect control” over the protocol.
Szilágyi explained that while Buterin may not officially dictate decisions, his influence is so pervasive that his preferences ultimately steer the direction of the project. “Vitalik doesn’t need to give orders,” Szilágyi argued. “Everyone is so focused on pleasing him or aligning with his vision that any deviation is quietly pushed aside.”
These comments have unleashed a broader discussion about leadership, decentralization, and governance within Ethereum’s evolving ecosystem. Many had long viewed Ethereum as a leaderless, community-driven project. But critics now question whether it has organically gravitated toward a more centralized structure, at least informally.
Polygon CEO Sandeep Nailwal also weighed in on the matter, echoing Szilágyi’s frustrations. Although he didn’t directly criticize Buterin, Nailwal acknowledged similar concerns regarding the Ethereum Foundation’s management style. He emphasized a persistent gap between Ethereum’s stated commitment to decentralization and the realities of how decisions are made behind the scenes.
Other developers and stakeholders have voiced concern that core contributors who challenge prevailing narratives or raise technical objections often find themselves marginalized. Szilágyi, for instance, shared that he has been sidelined in important discussions despite years of contribution to the protocol’s development.
“There’s this illusion of openness,” he said. “But when you try to raise the tough questions, you’re either ignored or quietly excluded.”
These revelations have reignited the debate over Ethereum’s governance model. As the platform continues transitioning toward Ethereum 2.0 and implements major upgrades like Danksharding and Proto-Danksharding, the question of who truly holds power becomes more pressing.
Critics argue that if Ethereum continues to rely on informal hierarchies or charismatic leadership, it risks undermining its foundational principles. The promise of a decentralized, permissionless blockchain loses its weight if protocol changes are implicitly controlled by one individual or a small inner circle.
Supporters of Buterin, however, view his role differently. They argue that Buterin’s deep involvement and vision have been crucial to Ethereum’s success, especially during critical junctures such as the launch of the Beacon Chain or the Merge. To them, his influence is less about control and more about guidance. They see him as a thought leader whose insights help unify the community rather than dominate it.
Still, the growing unease among developers like Szilágyi cannot be ignored. His departure from the inner circle raises questions about developer morale, long-term sustainability, and whether Ethereum can maintain a truly inclusive development environment.
To address these concerns, some in the community are calling for more formalized governance structures. Proposals include implementing transparent voting mechanisms, rotating leadership roles, and increasing the visibility of decision-making processes. These steps, they argue, could help balance influence across a broader range of stakeholders and ensure that Ethereum remains aligned with its decentralized ethos.
Furthermore, the conversation underscores a broader challenge facing many decentralized networks: how to scale governance without reverting to centralized decision-making. Ethereum, as a pioneer in the space, is under increasing scrutiny to model the kind of decentralized governance it promotes.
The situation also brings to light the emotional toll that prolonged technical contributions can have on developers. Burnout, lack of recognition, and political infighting have become common issues in open-source communities. Szilágyi’s candid remarks may serve as a wake-up call for the Ethereum ecosystem to reassess how it values and retains its core contributors.
Ultimately, the future of Ethereum hinges not only on technical innovation but also on how well it navigates the human dynamics of collaboration, leadership, and governance. Whether the community can rise to meet these challenges will determine if Ethereum continues to serve as a flagship for decentralized technology—or if it falls prey to the very centralization it was built to resist.