Author | Justin Leroux, CEO of GridPlus

Compilation | Wu Shuo Blockchain

Original link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/1xs172d/where_dissent_imposes_a_heavy_price/

TL;DR

· A newly filed complaint reveals the departure of several core contributors to the Ethereum Foundation this year. The author believes that co-executive director Bastian Aue puts employees' obedience to management above Ethereum and its values, requiring employees to sign a pledge to support the Mission Statement, otherwise they will be deemed to have resigned. Fifty-three people from the agreement group signed a letter opposing this approach, and two of the organizers of the letter were subsequently fired.

· Then-co-executive director and board member Wang Xiaowei once pointed out that the concerns raised by employees were critical to the future of the foundation. Vitalik Buterin still supports retaining the controversial hara-kiri clause and defended the sudden introduction of the signature requirement and subsequent dismissal decision.

· The authors call on the board to acknowledge that the ultimatum and April 6 dismissal decision were wrong, and for the foundation to remove the controversial provision to allow employees to express their dissent publicly. The article concluded by citing Aue's previous criteria for requiring employees to resign, implying that he should also leave the foundation according to the same criteria.

A lawsuit filed last week adds key clues to why the Ethereum Foundation has seen a series of high-profile departures this year. The Mandate that brought this conflict to a head also spells out how the foundation’s leadership should have acted then and what actions need to be taken now.

Over the past few days, I have studied the complaint over and over again and written this article to share my findings with you. The complaint describes how the foundation's actions undermined its legitimacy and had a negative impact on the entire Ethereum ecosystem.

Mission Statement

On March 13 this year, the Ethereum Foundation released a document called "The Mandate" and described it as a document that has the triple nature of a charter, a declaration, and an internal action guide. I've read a lot of mission statements, and few strike me as both sincere and practical, but much of this document is certainly well written. I have been involved in the Ethereum space for more than ten years, and the values ​​listed in the document clearly express the principles that I have pursued in this field. At its core is CROPS, which ensures that Ethereum remains censorship-resistant, open-source, privacy-preserving and secure.

I write this article because I have always believed that Ethereum and its decentralized technology stack are important technologies for protecting personal freedom, and they can only reach their full potential if they are carefully maintained. It is out of this belief that my personal and professional life has always revolved around this ecosystem. It also made this article particularly difficult to write, as the evidence clearly shows that the Ethereum Foundation leadership failed in this responsibility. I hope that by sorting out these situations, I can explain clearly what happened, why this caused serious harm to the entire Ethereum ecosystem, and how to correct the deviation next.

The release of the mission statement comes amid a schism within the foundation, followed by the departure of a number of high-profile members, sparking much speculation. It was not until the foundation's former head of protocol support, Kayleen Fulton (better known by her online name Nixo to most people in the Ethereum ecosystem), filed a lawsuit in federal court in Colorado, USA, that the outside world was able to learn more details. The indictment fills in key details that sparked much speculation earlier this year. The complaint alleges that new co-executive director Bastian Aue suppressed opposition within the foundation, including from some board members, and demanded unreserved obedience from all, even though these practices were in direct violation of the mission statement he espoused.

The mission statement reads that the foundation "is not the parent, owner, or ruler of Ethereum." The document also promises: “When we make mistakes, especially big ones, we will admit them humbly and gracefully, and be candid and clear about why we have changed our views.” It also reads: “We hold ourselves to high standards and treat people with kindness. Resilient systems are built by those who can "Built by people who can express their dissent clearly without hurting others, and who can remain curious under pressure." The document also describes Ethereum as a technology that frees people from "power relationships that are imposed without true consent, or where dissent comes at a heavy cost."

The indictment names defendants including the Ethereum Foundation’s entities in Switzerland and Singapore, two nominal employer services companies, co-executive directors Bastian Aue, and Vitalik Buterin. The complaint is submitted by the plaintiff and reflects the plaintiff's perspective and choice of facts. The foundation has not filed a defense in this regard. However, much of what is stated in the complaint is quoted directly from the foundation's own internal communications channels. I know and have spoken with multiple people who have experienced this. As far as I understand, the indictment accurately describes what happened.

Just days after its release, the Mission Statement is being put to the test by precisely what it espouses: someone who remains curious under pressure, expresses dissent clearly, and treats others well. Those who raised the most measured objections and who were most consistent with the Mission Statement’s own standards were fired. As they left, so did the open, collaborative culture within the foundation.

suicide clause

I said at the beginning that I basically agree with the content of the Mission Statement. So why did these people, who were working together toward a common goal they all valued, feud over this document?

There is an illustration on page 11 of the Mission Statement with embedded text titled "SOURCE SEPPUKU LICENSE". This license was sourced from the Milady NFT community and was originally intended as a joke. This circle can make everyone in the Bored Ape Community look like a Rhodes Scholar. The only public source I can find is the wiki page of Remilia, the company behind the Milady NFT. The page was created on February 5 of this year, 20 days before a draft mission statement was sent to employees. In another situation, this thing would have been embarrassing at most, but it wouldn't matter.

This license stipulates that any "author, maintainer, editor, or (re)distributor" who fails to fulfill any of the promises of the license, or modifies or deletes any part of the license, must "kill himself with the sword." The foundation added a sentence below: "If the foundation fails to fulfill its solemn commitment to Ethereum, I hope the foundation will commit suicide with its sword." It was followed by a heart.

Some defended the idea as an inappropriate joke by leadership, the kind Michael Scott from "The Office" would make. But it was so funny that the people listening found it funny. The audience here is Foundation employees. On February 25, board member Aya Miyaguchi sent the draft to employees and asked them to work together to turn it into a document that everyone agreed on. Employees expressed their opinions in writing through the board's own communication channels. Two days after the draft was issued, Trent Van Epps wrote that the license "must be deleted." By March 2, there had been a formal proposal to remove it, with 79 employees voting in favor. One person asked management in writing whether signing the document meant he had to commit suicide. Another employee said that a colleague committed suicide the year before. On March 5, Vitalik Buterin told employees that the mission statement was being revised and “there will be significant changes, especially to the parts where concerns have been expressed the most.” At the time, it seemed like things would be taken care of.

On March 13, the Board of Directors released its Mission Statement. Not a word of the license was deleted. It was made into a small picture and placed in the footer. It used a font similar to Comic Sans. The text was slanted, had a glitch effect, and cartoon cats were placed on both sides. The word "seppuku" has been removed from the machine-readable text and cannot be found using a page search. The foundation then wrote the entire document to the Ethereum blockchain.

I've been pondering this last detail. Whatever you think of the license, the board had a vote, a written objection, and a week to redesign the terms. Buterin explained the choice on the day the document was released. He said that it is perfectly fine in principle to "no one can be offended" like Mozilla, "but we feel that that no-one-can-offend attitude is not the motivation we need now." As the complaint puts it: “An organization doesn’t spend a week redesigning a clause it considers irrelevant.”

Vitalik Buterin was a principled and thoughtful man, so it was hard for me to understand how he could think this sequence of actions made sense. The objections were posted on the board's own communication channels, and one of them mentioned that a colleague had committed suicide. Three days later, he promised major changes. But the joke was eventually published as it was, with a different format and a chain. He's not a cold or mean person, so I can only speculate that when he said "this aesthetic is deliberately controversial as part of its intention," he either suffered a moment of poor judgment or listened to advice that was contrary to his own values.

ultimatum

On March 18, Fulton spoke in real name on the all-staff communication channel. "I'm more concerned about the near-unanimous opinion being blatantly ignored and then dismissed lightly than the hara-kiri or the Milady connection," she said, adding: "There is little trust between the board and the rest of the institution."

Co-executive director and board member Hsiao-Wei Wang publicly responded that the issues raised by Fulton are “critical to the future of the Ethereum Foundation.” Bastien Aue, another co-executive director, responded to Fulton on the morning of Friday, March 20: “We are past the appropriate stage to raise concerns about the Mission Statement. It is now time to implement it.”

Two hours later, the ultimatum was delivered. All employees must submit a form by the end of Monday. The form provides two options. The first is: “I am personally committed to following the direction set out in the Mission Statement, helping to translate it into a well-argued strategy in my area of responsibility, and fully focusing on the key tasks necessary to implement the Statement. This commitment is effective today and will continue until my time at the Ethereum Foundation The last day of work.” The second item is: “I am not sure about making the above commitment, hope to apply for additional months of salary, and leave the Ethereum Foundation as soon as possible.” Anyone who does not agree with this document is asked to “make the only decent decision and leave the Ethereum Foundation.” The form also states: "Failure to submit the form will be deemed a decision to leave the company."

Some people ask why the default option is to terminate employment. "Acquiescence in departure is necessary to ensure that everyone who remains takes the initiative to commit," Aue wrote. Someone asked who agreed to join the suicide pledge. Aue replied: "If you're asking who agreed to put it in, I agreed."

One engineer asked if signing the form meant he had to commit suicide. The response he received was that the pledge was "part of the Mission Statement illustration and, like the other elements within it, is a cultural reference. We chose it intentionally but did not intend it to be taken literally." Later that day, the form was amended to make it clear that the pledge had "nothing to do with actual seppuku."

He apparently didn't realize how ridiculous it was: An organization had modified a form asking employees to pledge their loyalty to specifically clarify that signers didn't have to commit suicide, while insisting that everyone sign to keep their jobs.

The next morning, Buterin wrote that the suddenness of the matter was deliberate: "A decisive change of this kind is not exactly suitable for a committee to design, so this time we adopted an undemocratic approach to the announcement." The submission deadline was later extended by two days, and the signature requirement remained in effect.

Joint letter

At this time, the people who were actually involved in building Ethereum did what the Mission Statement advocated. On March 24 and 25, researchers and coordinators in the protocol group drafted a collective response. They are usually responsible for promoting the upgrade process of the Ethereum protocol itself. Tim Beiko, the coordinator of the agreement group and Fulton's direct supervisor, removed management from the channel where the joint letter was drafted in advance to allow employees to speak freely. He also reminded everyone: "For various reasons such as economy and welfare benefits, leaving the company is not a feasible option for many people."

The letter, which Fulton sent on his own behalf and publicly released on March 25, was addressed to the two co-executive directors, the board of directors and the entire staff. She coordinated the drafting with Van Epps. The letter reads:

We agree with the overall direction of the Mission Statement, but under these conditions cannot make a commitment in good faith. We intend to continue contributing to Ethereum in line with the values ​​of CROPS and autonomy. We will continue to perform our respective responsibilities and will not resign. Many of us signed our commitment to the Mission Statement because of pressure and fear of losing our jobs and livelihoods. We believe that they filled out this form under duress and that the choices they made did not make sense.

Everyone I know at the Ethereum Foundation who signed the pledge told me they were strongly opposed to the approach but wanted to keep their jobs. They were told they had a choice, but were faced with the choice of signing or giving up the career they had been immersed in. One person I spoke to at the time said he and his entire team were “demoralized” and had a complete breakdown in trust in the foundation’s leadership. For these people, Ethereum is far more than just a job, but a career that is of vital significance to them. But their opinions were shelved and the decision fell into the hands of a leader who had just told them that the time for their opinions was over.

The letter was signed by 49 people when it was sent out, and eventually grew to 53, about half of the agreement group. The letter endorses the direction of the Mission Statement, rejects commitments under duress, and makes it clear that the signatories will continue to work. The entire letter contained no threats. This embodies almost verbatim what the manifesto says about “articulating dissent without harming others” and “remaining curious under pressure.” One signatory wrote at the time that the letter "gives us some choice back at a time when employees feel they have lost their autonomy and voice."

Two days later, the ultimatum expired. On March 27, Aue announced that he would “consider the signatures on the agreement group’s letter as an expression of dissatisfaction with the process and forms, as well as an acknowledgment of the signatories’ respective commitments to the contents of the Mission Statement.” He added: "If I had the opportunity to do it again, I would definitely handle it differently in many aspects." He also said that he "takes this personal responsibility very seriously to ensure that similar things do not happen again in the future of the Ethereum Foundation." At first, the letter seemed to be working, with all 53 signatories keeping their jobs.

20 minutes is enough to change a lot of things

At 8:10 a.m. on Monday, April 6, Aue released a lengthy statement to all staff explaining how the foundation makes decisions. Employees can raise concerns "for the information of decision-makers rather than trying to apply pressure," the statement said. "The tone of expression is important, especially in public. If you find yourself getting emotional, you may have moved from giving advice to applying pressure." If well-founded opinions fail to bring about change and "shake your confidence in the Ethereum Foundation," then "it may be better for you, the foundation, and Ethereum to look outside the foundation for ways to contribute to Ethereum."

At 8:30 a.m., Aue fired Trent Van Epps, one of the two organizers of the joint letter, during a video call without giving a reason. At 9 a.m., he sacked Fulton again. Seven months ago, Beko rated Fulton "well above expectations" during a performance review and gave her a 21.9 percent raise.

During the call, Aue told Fulton that the decision to fire him was his alone. She has “performed well in the past,” has “wide support among her colleagues,” and “no deficiencies were identified” in performing her duties. He refused to explain the reasons for the dismissal and offered only to continue paying her salary for another year if she took a job elsewhere. Thirteen days ago, Fulton informed Aue, Wang Xiaowei, Miyaguchi Aya and the Human Resources Operations Department in writing that he had been diagnosed with cancer and was starting treatment, and requested to maintain the existing employment relationship. Aue, Wang Xiaowei and Miyaguchi Ling did not reply.

That afternoon, Fulton received a severance agreement. The agreement requires her to waive all claims she may have and has a Singapore arbitration clause. She only had three days to sign, or she would be fired "without any severance or other benefits." Her health insurance lapsed at the end of the month. Of the 53 signatories of the letter, the two people who were fired were the ones involved in organizing the letter.

In less than a week, two of the three coordinators of the agreement group were announced to be leaving, including Beko, and the third was taking a long leave. Co-executive director Xiaowei Wang, who previously called the objections raised by employees “critical to the future of the Ethereum Foundation,” went on leave the day the pair were fired and resigned in June. The wave of departures continued into September. By then, the agreement support team had been dismantled and most of the signatories of the letter had resigned or been fired.

Whatever Aue thinks of the wording of the mission statement, what he actually demands from employees is obedience, and the foundation’s publicly stated principles are set aside.

When principles become decoration

At the time, as an outside observer, I felt this was a baffling act of self-harm by the Foundation. Many well-respected long-time contributors were forced to leave, some were fired, and others were pushed beyond their ability to stay. The group of people who worked side by side with me in the past ten years and were most invested in this ecosystem suddenly left in droves without any explanation from the outside world. Occasionally someone suggests that they are bound by a confidentiality agreement. I couldn't figure out the reason at the time. The records listed in the indictment fill in these missing links in detail, using the leadership’s own words.

About three and a half weeks after the two were fired, Buterin explained the two firings to Fulton in a recorded conversation. He acknowledged that employees should have been given weeks to make a decision but instead were given three days to respond. Fulton asked him what he would think about an organization that immediately fired an employee for co-branding with the organization after she informed her of her cancer diagnosis. Buterin did not refute the premise of this question. The question, he said, is "what kind of behavior do you want to encourage within the Ethereum Foundation" because "if you can get the desired results by making a fuss, then everyone will know that for the foundation to make changes, just make things bigger internally and externally."

The mission statement reads that Ethereum exists to free people from “power relationships that are imposed without true consent, or where dissent comes at a heavy cost.” The reasons Buterin gave for his dismissal decision exactly reflected this power relationship. The same document said the foundation acted “without whim or coercion.”

Read the Mission Statement and the Complaint side by side, and the irony strikes you.

Who is really responsible?

I have great respect for Vitalik Buterin. He is thoughtful, analytical, and friendly. But from the beginning, his ability to judge an idea was stronger than his ability to judge a person.

In my opinion, he trusted the wrong person at the wrong moment. Compared to researchers, core developers, and even Wang Xiaowei, who is also a board member and co-executive director, Aue's words were more convincing. Wang Xiaowei has made it clear that this meaningless conflict threatens the future of the entire foundation.

Buterin was also involved in the process. He defended retaining the license, defended the style when Wang Xiaowei took issue with its aesthetic, and said the sudden introduction of the signature requirement was intentional. Afterwards, when he explained his decision to dismiss, he also talked about what kind of behavior the Ethereum Foundation should encourage.

After others read the indictment, they will naturally make their own judgments. Regardless, what the foundation does is there. 79 employees requested that a sentence be deleted. About half of the members of the agreement group refused to commit under duress and expressed their position in a polite manner. The board rejected the first request, accepted the letter from the latter group of employees, and then fired the two people who drafted the letter. Whether these actions stem from the temperament of one person or the shared beliefs of many, it is the institution that takes these actions. It is named after Ethereum, and Vitalik endorses it.

How to correct the deviation

I write this article because the Foundation once told us what we would do if we made a mistake on a major issue. The way out is in this passage from the Mission Statement: “When we make mistakes, especially big ones, we admit them humbly and gracefully, and explain candidly and clearly why we changed our views and what we believe now.”

If the Ethereum Foundation wants to rebuild credibility with those who are actually involved in building this protocol every day, it should follow the principles of the Mission Statement, take responsibility for its mistakes, and take action.

The first step would be for the board to issue a statement bluntly admitting three things: It was wrong to issue the ultimatum, it was wrong to treat collective dissent raised by employees in a respectful manner as a threat, and it was wrong to fire two employees on April 6. Aue himself admitted some of this back on March 27.

Next, foundations should change internal cultures that stifle open discussion and dissent of all kinds. The foundation shoulders the responsibility of maintaining Ethereum and also has its own credibility to maintain. It fired a cancer patient without giving a reason. No matter how much it costs to properly remedy the situation, the foundation's credibility is more important than the cost.

Take that license out of the mission statement and give employees and the community the respect they deserve from the beginning. That version has been permanently left on the chain, but the new version can also be put on the chain, allowing everyone to see that the foundation’s leadership values ​​principles more than requiring blind obedience from the protocol builders.

The people who signed the joint letter truly agree with the values ​​of Ethereum and are willing to stand up and defend them. The foundation once had a group of employees who had the courage to politely say "no" to those in power and who would continue to do their jobs well. Today, many of them have left, which is the foundation's loss. Those left behind are watching to see what happens next, and so is everyone building on Ethereum.

The board owes its remaining employees the promise of the mission statement. It should "give a frank and clear explanation in a humble and dignified manner" acknowledging that the ultimatum and the April 6 dismissal decision were wrong and face the consequences. Only in this way can the foundation once again become a place where people can "clearly express dissent without harming others" while keeping their jobs.

Aue agreed to retain this oath in the officially released "Mission Statement": "If the foundation fails to fulfill its solemn commitment to Ethereum, I hope the foundation will commit suicide by committing suicide." He once told foundation employees that anyone who cannot fulfill the "Mission Statement" should "make the only decent decision and leave the Ethereum Foundation." According to the standards he set for others, now it was his turn to make that honorable decision.

Risk warning

According to the latest Yinfa [2026] No. 42 document issued by eight departments including the People's Bank of China, the content of this platform is only used for sharing technology and information in the blockchain industry. It does not constitute any investment advice, and does not promote or endorse any business or investment behavior. Readers are requested to strictly abide by the laws and regulations of their region and beware of investment risks and fraud. There are currently a large number of fraudulent and counterfeit accounts, so please be vigilant and screen them carefully. All content on this platform is prohibited from reprinting, copying or commercial use without permission.

Beijing Blue Seahorse Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. All rights reserved. Beijing ICP No. 2023026470