Vitalik TAKO AMA: ETH Positioning, Sequencer Centralization, L1 vs L2, Governance, and Success Metrics
On the evening of February 19th at 12 PM UTC and lasting until 12 PM UTC on February 20th, Vitalik Buterin, the founder of Ethereum, was invited to participate in a flash text interview on Tako (a client based on Farcaster) with Mable Jiang, the Chief Revenue Officer of FSL. WuBlockchain has polished, translated, and organized the interview content as follows:
Question 1
In your mind, is Ethereum today closer to the nature of Bitcoin or that of a world computer?
You previously mentioned in a Twitter post that many people with negative views on ETH are actually short — term speculators, and their frustrated emotions hardly bring any constructive help to the ETH community. However, within the OG ETH — Maxi camp, many people have been promoting the concept of “ETH is money” (for example, Bankless, the largest media advocating for ETH — Maxi). They draw comparisons between ETH and BTC, considering it as another competitive form of digital currency (and perhaps an even better one).
What is your ultimate vision for the future adoption of ETH?
Vitalik: “Is Ethereum a World Computer or Money?”
I believe these two perspectives are mutually compatible.
There’s a simple test to determine which blockchains are truly decentralized: if the foundation disappears, can the chain still survive? I think only Bitcoin and Ethereum can answer with a definite “yes”. Most of Ethereum’s development is not confined to the foundation. Client teams have independent business models, and many current researchers are not affiliated with the foundation. Almost all activities except for Devcon are carried out independently.
Reaching this stage has been no easy feat. Five years ago, Ethereum was not in such a situation.
It would be a huge mistake to sacrifice these advantages in pursuit of TPS (Transactions Per Second), because there will always be new chains emerging, and suddenly there will be one with a higher TPS than yours. However, decentralization and resilience are precious, and few blockchains possess these qualities.
These features are not only conducive to creating a digital currency with long — term value but also to building an excellent world computer. However, the world computer also needs to address the scalability issue. A “world computer” doesn’t mean “a computer that can support all global applications simultaneously”, but rather “a platform that enables global applications to interoperate”. High — performance computing can be implemented on L2, and that’s fine. But L1 still needs to have sufficient scalability. For specific details, you can refer to an article I recently published: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2025/02/14/l1scaling.html
ETH is a digital asset applicable to various global applications, including finance and other fields (such as ENS). Although not every ETH transaction needs to be processed on L1, it must ensure sufficient throughput so that any user who wishes to use L1 can do so at least occasionally.
Therefore, these two directions are compatible: they both help Ethereum achieve better world — computer characteristics and make ETH a superior digital currency.
Question 2
By now, many L2s have emerged, mainly based on the OP Stack system, with some attempts at zkRollup as well. We would love to hear your evaluation of the Rollup approach over the past few years. Please objectively review:
1. What aspects do you think have been done well, and which ones are different from what was initially expected?
2. Overall, do Rollups serve as a boost or a drain on Ethereum? (I saw you appealing for these L2s to give back to Ethereum a few days ago.)
3. Does ETH really need these L2s?
Vitalik: “Ethereum Needs a Hybrid L1 + L2 Model”
Ethereum needs to adopt a hybrid L1 + L2 model.
Currently, our scaling approach can basically be understood as a hybrid L1 + L2 model, but I feel that no one has clearly defined which transactions should be processed on L1 and which ones on L2.
The “everything on L2” solution is unacceptable because it would easily cause ETH to lose its position as a transaction medium and store of value. If you’re worried that L2s are siphoning off L1 users without giving anything back to L1, the problem would be even more severe in a scenario where “L1 does almost nothing”.
Cross — L2 operations still rely on L1. If an L2 encounters problems, users should still have a way to migrate to other L2s. Therefore, there are certain use cases for L1 that are inevitable. I’ve written an article on this topic, which can be found at: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2025/02/14/l1scaling.html
The “everything on L1” solution is also not ideal:
● If L1 supports too many transactions, it is likely to become centralized. Even with technologies like ZK — EVM, it’s difficult to avoid this.
● The global demand for on — chain transactions is infinite. No matter how high the TPS of L1 is, there will always be an application that requires 10 times or more TPS (such as artificial intelligence, micropayments, and micro — prediction markets).
● L2s can not only achieve scalability but also provide faster confirmation times through pre — confirmations and avoid the MEV problem through Sequencers.
Therefore, we need a hybrid L1 + L2 model. In the short term, I think we should continue to enhance the capabilities of L1, increase Blobs to provide more space for L2s, promote cross — L2 interoperability, and ultimately let the market decide which scaling approach is most suitable for specific applications.
In addition, the role of L2s will continue to evolve. For example, currently, EVM — equivalent L2s seem sufficient, but in the future, there may be more privacy — focused L2s (such as Aztec and Intmax), and there may also be more application — specific L2s (for example, solutions for an application that wants to control its own MEV problem).
Question 3
The Rollup approach has been proposed for quite some time. Do you think the centralized Sequencers of projects like Arbitrum, Base, and OP are a major challenge for future regulation, as they may be difficult to truly resist censorship? Do you think they will shift to a decentralized Sequencer solution in the future? If your answer to the previous question is yes, then what’s your opinion on the centralized Sequencer solution of MegaETH?
Vitalik: “On Centralized Sequencers”
Centralized Sequencers actually have many advantages:
● They can prevent front — running and other means of stealing users’ funds.
● They can achieve instant pre — confirmations.
● They are helpful for traditional applications to quickly transform into blockchain applications, as servers can directly act as Sequencers.
We can use the decentralized features of blockchain to mitigate the risks brought by centralized Sequencers:
● The Forced inclusion mechanism ensures that Sequencers do not censor users.
● The Optimistic or ZK proof mechanisms guarantee that Sequencers do not arbitrarily change or violate application rules (such as suddenly inflating a certain token or NFT collection).
Of course, centralized Sequencers still pose risks. So we can’t rely solely on centralized Sequencers to solve all problems. We must also have the ability to use Based Rollup or directly trade on L1. Therefore, I support promoting both methods in the ecosystem so that we can observe which one is more suitable for different applications.
At the same time, it’s crucial to maintain the ability of ordinary users to initiate censorship — resistant transactions.
If centralized Sequencers are held accountable by US regulatory authorities, two situations may occur:
● DAOs choose to use Sequencers and backup Sequencers, constantly migrating to new Sequencers.
● We switch to Based Rollup.
I think the first option is worth further study; I know that some L2 teams are also exploring this direction. The second option is also a possible alternative. In addition, there may be other reasons that make us more inclined to Based Rollup.
The advantage of Ethereum is that we can explore multiple directions simultaneously.
Question 4
Regarding the technical roadmap of ETH 3.0, what are the differences between its expected goals and those of the Rollup era? In the 3.0 design plan announced at Devcon last November, was the issue that Rollups have not actually provided real — world value to the Ethereum mainnet considered?
Vitalik: “The Relationship of Value Capture between L2 and L1”
There is currently no such concept as ETH 3.0.
Some people may refer to Justin Drake’s 5 — year plan, but that plan only involves the consensus layer, not the execution layer. So it’s just a part of Ethereum’s future development.
The relationship and balance between L1 and L2 belong to the execution — layer issue. There is another roadmap aimed at strengthening the capabilities of L1 (such as increasing the Gas Limit, implementing Stateless Verification like Verkle, and other functions), while enhancing cross — L2 interoperability and increasing Blobs.
I think the question of whether L2s should pay sufficient transaction fees to L1 cannot be viewed solely from a short — term perspective. For example:
● Before the implementation of EIP — 4844, people complained that L1 might be draining resources from L2.
● But in the past 30 days, the Blob fees were approximately 500 ETH.
● If the Blob Target is increased from 3 to 128, according to our plan, with the Blob Gas price remaining unchanged, 21,333 ETH will be burned each month, approximately 256,000 ETH per year.
Therefore, the narrative can change rapidly. At this stage, we need to strengthen L1, enable transactions that should occur on L1 to be executed there, increase Blobs, and maintain the adaptability of the community.
Question 5
You decided to take the lead in the Ethereum Foundation again. I believe this was a well — thought — out and difficult decision, a brave leap. I deeply admire you for this. Could you share your thought process?
At the same time, I’m curious whether you recognize Chinese — style socialism. My question stems from your discussion with Ameen about the “proper board”. Before moving onto the right development path, do you think an organization needs a strong leader to guide and correct its direction?
Vitalik: “Decentralization” Does Not Mean “Doing Nothing”
I think the current blockchain community and the entire world are in a rather precarious state. Many things with no long — term value, or even malicious in nature, are happening, and the people behind them are receiving a great deal of attention.
However, we can’t just complain about these phenomena without offering better alternatives. So our goal should be to develop a viable alternative and prove that a stable and brighter future is achievable.
Here, I’m referring not only to the current situation within the blockchain community (for example, if a Memecoin drops by 97% in a day, that’s definitely not the future we want. So what is the right future?), but also to macro — social issues. Nowadays, many people believe that the democratic approach doesn’t work and that only strong leaders can drive things forward. But at Devcon, a political scientist told me that he highly respects Ethereum because we are a truly open and decentralized ecosystem. Our success gives him hope, proving that this model has a positive impact on the world and can serve as a successful example for many to follow.
However, “decentralization” does not mean “doing nothing”. The “subtraction” philosophy of the Ethereum Foundation doesn’t mean shrinking the foundation to zero but is a way to maintain ecological balance. If there is an imbalance in a certain area (for example, if a part of the ecosystem becomes too centralized or if an important public good is neglected), we can step in to promote balance. After solving the problem, the foundation can withdraw from that area. When a new imbalance emerges in another area, we can then shift our resources there.
In Chinese culture, the approach we pursue may be closer to the wisdom of “Tao Te Ching”. But following this path requires intelligence and the intervention of the foundation in key areas. It’s not something that can be achieved simply by “letting things take their own course”. In the short term, we need to invest more energy in some important transformations.
Question 6
From your perspective, what do you think are the main reasons why some OG ETH — Maxis have left the Ethereum community?
When I recorded a podcast with Shuyao, she mentioned an interesting idea: Ethereum needs to start from scratch in order to rebuild (half — jokingly). At this stage, does Ethereum really face the need to reshuffle its existing holders and community members in order to find its own way forward?
Vitalik: “Ethereum Needs New Narratives and New Users”
Everyone’s experience is different.
For example, many people in the blockchain community claimed ten years ago that the goal of blockchain was to build a global neutral system to protect individual freedom and check government hegemony. But now, if a president issues a Memecoin, they would say, “Wow, this is real — world adoption.” However, if the same thing happens on another chain, they might suggest that we should be more friendly to those politicians so that the next such event will occur on our chain. Personally, I think these people have gone astray. Of course, they would also say that I’m too idealistic and unrealistic. Each side has its own narrative.
Some people also think that the Ethereum ecosystem is dominated by OGs, making it difficult for new members to break in. But this is another form of criticism.
I think the only way out is to create new narratives, clearly explaining why Ethereum exists, what ETH is used for, and the functions of L1 and L2. Today is no longer an era solely focused on infrastructure; it’s the era of the application layer. These narratives cannot remain at the abstract level of “freedom, openness, censorship — resistance, and cyberpunk — style public goods” but need to provide clear answers at the application — layer. Recently, I plan to give more support to Info Finance (which is also a direction of the combination of AI and Crypto), privacy protection, financing methods for high — quality public goods, and the continuous improvement of the global open — finance platform, including Real World Assets. These measures are not only in line with our long — held values but also provide more opportunities for new entrants.
Question 7
Do you think Ethereum needs to adopt a more commercial and corporate — style management? Do you think the difference between ETH and SOL is essentially a competition of efficiency between different “organizational forms” and also a difference in achieving different goals? What are their respective goals?
Vitalik: “If Ethereum Becomes a Company, It Will Lose Most of Its Significance”
If Ethereum Becomes a Company, It Will Lose Most of Its Significance.
I’ve always believed that Ethereum is a decentralized ecosystem, not a company. If Ethereum becomes a company, we would lose its core value. In fact, there are already many large companies in the Ethereum ecosystem: Consensys, various client teams (such as Nethermind and Nimbus), Coinbase, and L2 teams (for example, Aztec and Intmax, whose privacy technologies are excellent but often underestimated).
The best approach is to provide more opportunities for these companies to leverage their respective advantages, while the foundation acts as a coordinator.
Question 8
You’ve always been interested in the application of ZK (Zero — Knowledge) technology in the Web3 field. Besides its application in asset — trading scenarios, in social media networks, which scenarios do you think are suitable for introducing ZK to achieve privacy protection?
Vitalik: “On Non — Financial Use Cases of ZK”
I’m very interested in many non — financial applications of ZK technology, such as:
● Anti — Sybil verification: Many services require users to go through KYC (Know Your Customer) to log in, not because they need to know your identity but to confirm that you’re not a bot and that you can’t create unlimited new accounts after being banned. To achieve this use case, only a ZK Proof of Personhood or Proof of Reputation is needed. Sometimes, a Proof of Tokens is also sufficient (such as on the anonworld platform).
● Cryptography — based privacy — protected AI applications: In some scenarios, ZK may not be the most suitable technology, and FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption) may be more applicable. There have been many recent advancements in FHE. If its computational overhead can be further reduced, it will have great application potential.
● ZK — SNARK (Zero — Knowledge Succinct Non — Interactive Argument of Knowledge) applications for wrapping any Web2 account: Using ZK technology to migrate existing accounts to Web3 platforms, such as ZKEmail, Anon Aadhaar, ZKPassport, and ZK TLS.
I think that by protecting personal freedom and privacy, this technology has the potential to play an important role in solving problems in many fields, including social security and governance.
Question 9
Currently, how can we encourage more developers to join Ethereum and motivate and retain existing developers? (Compared with the generous incentive mechanisms of some new L1s and even L2s, Ethereum faces a more complex situation.) Among the three aspects of accelerating network decentralization, enhancing scalability, and exploring more application scenarios, which one do you think should be the current priority for Ethereum?
Vitalik: “The Alignment of the Ethereum Community Is a Technical Matter, Not a Social Game”
We need to address the following three issues simultaneously:
● Attract more developers.
● Encourage developers to create open — source, secure applications that meet public standards and have long — term value.
● Prevent the ecosystem from becoming closed (for example, avoid the situation where “we unite because we’re friends with developers”).
Therefore, I recently proposed that “Ethereum Alignment should be a technical game, not a social one.”
I think the most pressing centralization issues currently often lie not in L1 but in L2, wallets, or the application layer. Therefore, the entire ecosystem needs to work together to attract new developers while continuously making progress in decentralization and trustlessness.
We can achieve this goal through the following methods:
● Education: Help developers better understand the mission of blockchain, which transactions should be processed on — chain, and what issues they need to pay attention to.
● Lower the technical threshold: If certain blockchain — specific technologies are too complex for developers, the foundation can provide corresponding tools (such as ZK programming languages and A16Z’s Helios).
● Establish clear standards: For example, if you develop an Ethereum
client, it should pass multiple tests to ensure its compliance. For L2s, the Stage 1 and Stage 2 frameworks of L2Beat can be used as a reference. Such standards also apply to ZK applications, wallets, and other fields.
Question 10
With the rapid development of AI — accelerating technologies today, you once proposed the concept of d/acc (de — accelerationism/defensive accelerationism against accelerationism). Looking back now, has the effective acceleration process of technology rights decentralization and decentralization met your expectations? What concerns or potential risks do you have? Personally, I feel a bit powerless because I know that “Folding Beijing” may imply a certain future — from a humanistic perspective, I don’t want it to happen, but it seems to be getting closer.
Vitalik: “Develop Decentralized Technologies to Make Accelerationism More Defensive”
It is important to clarify here: d/acc does not mean “de — acceleration” but “decentralized defensive acceleration”.
This is crucial. Currently, some people advocate for Deceleration or Degrowth, but I think this direction is wrong. In peacetime, slowing down development may delay improvements in medical care and infrastructure, causing more harm to people. In today’s dangerous world, if we don’t accelerate, we will be left behind by those who are willing to do so.
Decentralized and defensive technologies must compete with other technologies. If the development of offensive weapons progresses rapidly while defensive technologies lag behind, the world will only become more dangerous. If centralized technologies develop at a high speed while decentralized technologies stagnate, the world will become more and more centralized. Therefore, we need to counter these trends. Blockchain is just one part of it. There are also other areas such as P2P networks, software and hardware security (the “shield” of the digital world), and the biological field.
Question 11
Regarding all employees of the Ethereum Foundation, including the leadership team, is there a performance evaluation mechanism such as KPI/OKR? Non-profit organizations generally face issues of low efficiency. Do you think the EF also has such a situation? If so, how can it be solved? Could you systematically elaborate on how to accelerate Ethereum’s development from various aspects? After all, ETH has been around for 10 years, but the update frequency is only once a year, and the development progress seems slow and in urgent need of significant acceleration.
Vitalik: “Let’s Review EF’s Reforms Six Months Later”
The Ethereum Foundation has launched many internal reforms in recent months. So any answer I give now will soon be outdated. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to discuss this issue six months later.
Question 12
How do you understand the role of Crypto as an anti — establishment infrastructure in the process of realizing “Degen Communism”? Do you think the current Memecoins (I’m referring to those that emerged rapidly on Solana) constitute a “beneficial chaos” in achieving “Degen Communism”? (This term comes from your blog.) There’s no need for anonymity here. Also, I highly recommend you play “Disco Elysium”. I believe you’ll like it.
Vitalik: “The Core of Degen Communism Is to Create Better ‘Game Rules’”
The core of Degen Communism lies in formulating better “game rules”.
Chaos is neither necessarily beneficial nor harmful. The key is how to set the “game rules” so that the chaos spontaneously generated by the community can have a positive effect.
For example, civil wars in countries usually have negative impacts, unless they are to overthrow a tyrannical regime. Market chaos can often eliminate inefficient old companies and provide opportunities for new ones. However, sometimes the market can also cause problems within the blockchain community. It’s actually quite complex.
How to formulate better rules? I wrote an article last year exploring the possibilities in the Memecoin direction. You’re welcome to read it: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2024/03/29/memecoins.html
Question 13
You should be aware of Simon de la Rouviere’s “This Art is Always on Sale” experiment on the Harberger tax (where patronage is regarded as an asset class — Patronage as an Asset Class). Do you think such experiments can make new progress on decentralized social networks in the future? Are there any mechanisms you’re looking forward to seeing applied in decentralized social experiments?
Vitalik: “Governance/Incentive Mechanisms Worth Trying in Decentralized Social Media”
Yes, I think decentralized social media provides a great opportunity to experiment with many new mechanisms.
For example, the Harberger tax is one case. There are also mechanisms similar to Community Notes (for details, see: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/08/16/communitynotes.html), Creator Payouts, which are similar to those on Twitter and YouTube but more fair and transparent. We can also try Retro Funding, Deep Funding, Quadratic Funding, etc.
At the same time, combining the governance of social media with DAOs is also a direction worth exploring.
Question 14
As a group of people active in the crypto world, we still highly rely on centralized social applications such as Telegram and Twitter for communication and collaboration. The construction of truly decentralized social media and crypto communication tools does not seem to receive enough attention. Does their development meet your expectations? What suggestions do you have for teams exploring this field?
Vitalik: “On the Promotion and Adoption of Decentralized Social Media”
This is indeed a matter I care about deeply. In the past two years, I’ve been trying to shift most of my conversations from Telegram to Signal. However, although Signal has good privacy features, it is still a centralized system, lacks interoperability, requires a mobile phone number for registration, and its servers can obtain a large amount of metadata.
Building a high — quality Messenger is not easy. Every year, I try using Status. Its goal is to achieve full decentralization. Although they’ve done a good job, there are still some reliability issues. In fact, there are many small teams developing their own Messengers, but due to a lack of unity, it’s difficult for each product to reach a sufficient level of quality.
I recently started using Fileverse to manage my various documents, and the experience has been quite good. Currently, many people in the foundation are using it. If a decentralized Messenger with sufficient encryption protection reaches this quality standard in the future, I will fully support it and help the community migrate.
Question 15
There are rumors that you may have chosen the Milady community for certain reasons. I’m curious to know how you explain your认同感 with Milady?
Vitalik: “Why I Like Milady”
I think the reason why Milady can attract so many people is that:
● It’s not boring.
● It’s not malicious.
If you observe the mainstream circles, you’ll find that it’s not easy to meet these two criteria simultaneously, and Milady is one of the most successful examples.
Question 16
Are you a communist?
Vitalik: “On Whether I’m a Communist”
No. I’m neither a communist nor a capitalist. Both are 20th — century ideologies, and these terms have been so overused that they’ve lost their original meaning.
I support freedom, global equality of opportunity, kindness and cooperation, as well as human well — being and progress. These are eternal principles. The key is how to use existing tools to achieve these values in the context of the 21st century. I’ve elaborated on various mechanisms I support, but I don’t think I’m the only source of ideas. I believe that finding the best approach requires continuous thinking and real — world experiments.
Question 17
Could you systematically and elaborately explain how to accelerate Ethereum’s development? After all, ETH has been around for 10 years, but the update frequency is only once a year, and the development progress seems slow and in urgent need of significant acceleration.
Vitalik: “Currently, Ethereum’s Development Mainly Focuses on Increasing the Number of Blobs”
Currently, the main goal is to increase the number of Blobs, which specifically includes:
● Optimize pectra to increase the Blob Target from 3 to 6.
● On the basis of the Fusaka upgrade, add PeerDAS to further increase the Blob Target.
● Continue to optimize PeerDAS in 2026 and 2027.
● Introduce 2D Data Availability Sampling to increase the Blob Target again.
In addition, there is a roadmap to increase the Gas Limit of L1, but this involves more complex technical issues such as Delayed Execution and Statelessness.
Question 18
Today’s Vitalik has transformed from a young dragon — slayer into a “dragon — like” figure. During the Ethereum mining era, governance relied on democratic consensus. But now, in your management system, does it present an autocratic and despotic model? After the transition to PoS, has it evolved from a democratic system to a system similar to the People’s Congress system?
Vitalik: “PoS Is Not a Governance Method in Ethereum”
PoW (Proof of Work) can only maintain a certain degree of democracy in the short term because economies of scale make large miners more efficient. In the long run, it will inevitably lead to centralization.
I think the reason why ASICs (Application — Specific Integrated Circuits) didn’t emerge before PoS in Ethereum is mainly that everyone knew we planned to transition from PoW to PoS. If we had claimed from the beginning that we would always use PoW, it’s likely that a large number of ASICs would have appeared between 2016 and 2019 (unless we carried out algorithmic forks every year, but that would also lead to centralization).
Therefore, I think our plan — using PoW for about 7 years and then transitioning to PoS — is the optimal strategy.
The fairness of PoS lies in that if you have 10 times the funds, you can produce 10 times the blocks. In ASIC — based PoW, 10 times the funds may mean 11 times the block production.
In addition, PoS is not used as a governance tool in Ethereum. Ether holders have no right to choose which EIPs (Ethereum Improvement Proposals) are included in the next fork. If we let PoS make these decisions, it would indeed turn into plutocracy.
Question 19
It is said that one of the reasons for launching the Beacon Chain was Casper Sharding. In my personal opinion, the decision to create the Beacon Chain was one of the most important moments in Ethereum’s history. However, events like the DAO fork or the Shanghai attack received more attention. (Maybe I just haven’t seen the relevant discussions. If there are any, please provide the links.) So, Vitalik:
1. When was the decision to create the Beacon Chain made? Was it in 2018?
2. What was the situation at that time? Was it a unanimous decision, or were there disputes?
3. Did you seriously consider upgrading ETH1 to PoS instead of creating a new Beacon Chain?
Vitalik:
It seems to me that after the DAO fork, few people in the Ethereum community opposed the transition to PoS. It was generally believed that this change was a foregone conclusion. Initially, there were more people against PoS, but the opposition to PoS was highly correlated with the opposition to the DAO fork. Therefore, after the DAO fork, most of the opponents chose ETC. Since 2016, at least among the core developers, I haven’t heard anyone propose canceling PoS or insisting on a permanent PoW chain.
The reason we decided to create the Beacon Chain is that we believed that before Ethereum fully adopted this new consensus algorithm, it was necessary to give it some time to run to ensure there were no obvious loopholes or problems. So, we decided to make the PoS chain an independent one, let it run independently first, and then merge it with the existing Ethereum. This could effectively reduce risks. We made this decision around the summer of 2018. At that time, we also discussed other roadmaps, such as PoW → hybrid PoS → PoS, but ultimately decided that starting an independent Beacon Chain was simpler and safer.
Question 20
How do you think the success of Ethereum should ultimately be measured? Is it through technological breakthroughs, the breadth of user adoption, or its impact on social equality and power distribution?
Vitalik: “The Success of Ethereum Should Ultimately Be Measured by Its Impact on Social Equality and Power Distribution”
I think the latter is the most important at present. In terms of technological breakthroughs, we have already achieved progress in areas such as zero — knowledge proofs, consensus algorithms, and virtual machines. In terms of user adoption, there is a certain scale, but the most attention — grabbing adoption cases are often those Memecoins that drop 97% in a day (I’m not completely against all Memecoins. I was an early buyer of DOGE, but the current Memecoins are of a completely different type).
I think the applications we need should pass the following three tests:
1. Can you imagine yourself or someone you know actually using it? That is, there is a difference between something being theoretically interesting and actually usable.
2. Can the application make money? If it can’t be profitable, it’s difficult to reach the highest quality standard.
3. Even if you’re neither a user nor an investor, would you be pleased because of the existence of this application? — Does it truly create value for the world?
Applications that can pass these three tests simultaneously are very rare. Currently, perhaps only payment and value — storage applications, or some prediction markets meet the requirements. We need about 10 more successful cases.
Question 21
When I first entered the industry, I read your book “The Ideal: Ethereum’s Blockchain Genesis”, with a preface written by your father, David. At that time, you were only 25 years old, and it was evident from the book that you had a good relationship with your father. It has been 14 years since you first came into contact with Bitcoin. How have the剧烈 fluctuations of the cryptocurrency industry and work pressure affected your family relationships?
Vitalik: “My Parents Were Supportive and Bought ETH from the Start”
My father and mother bought Ether from the very beginning. They have always paid attention to and supported me. In the early days of Ethereum’s development, they tried their best to arrange and purchase a large amount of learning materials for me to study coding. As for my father’s second wife, she has cared for me like a mother since I was 6 years old and has also provided me with a lot of support. I’ve always greatly admired their influence on me.
Question 22
I’ve seen the term “Bronze Age mindset” many times. As a Chinese — speaking reader, I don’t quite understand its connotation. How would you explain “Bronze Age mindset” to Chinese — speaking readers, Vitalik?
Vitalik:
“Bronze Age mindset” is a book published around 2018. It mainly discusses ideas that oppose equality among people, oppose rational thinking, and promote an extremely masculine — oriented perception. You can check out the book yourself: https://kyl.neocities.org/books/%5BSOC%20BRO%5D%20bronze%20age%20mindset.pdf (Or you can copy the content to a bot for a summary 😛).
In my opinion, this book represents a rather dominant value in the Western world recently. I personally oppose it very much because I think one of the worst things in human history was caused by such values. Therefore, I’m very worried when I see many people in the US Bitcoin community and the technology industry start discussing this idea.
Question 23
You once warned about the complexity of “crypto — politics” (such as the The DAO incident and the miner voting controversy). Now, the Ethereum Foundation, core developers, L2 teams, and large whale holders have formed an implicit power structure. Do you think “protocol — level minimal governance” is sufficient to deal with the interest — based games in future hard forks? When governance requirements at the social layer (such as those of ENS and Gitcoin) conflict with those at the protocol layer, is there a “constitutional — level” coordination principle?
Vitalik: “The Current Governance Model Can Deal with the Interest — Based Games in Future Hard Forks”
I don’t think there will be serious problems. This is mainly because almost all L1 protocol decisions are relatively complex technical decisions, and there are rarely situations where “it’s good for application A but bad for application B”. Sometimes, for example, when a new EVM function is added in an EIP, some projects may adopt it while others may not, but such differences are not serious. We have successfully resolved many similar problems in the past.
Question 24
Regarding EIP — 1559, do you think it has achieved the ideal dynamic — balance design? What’s your personal opinion on the proposals or ideas in the community to reduce the inflation of the Ethereum network and the goals they hope to achieve?
Vitalik: “EIP — 1559’s Goal Is to Provide Gas Market Efficiency, and It Has Completely Succeeded”
I think EIP — 1559 is often misunderstood. Its main goal is not to burn Ether but to improve market efficiency. Before EIP — 1559, it sometimes took 1 to 15 minutes for a transaction to be confirmed. Now, almost every transaction can be confirmed within 1 to 2 blocks.
This mechanism has been completely successful. Therefore, we are currently exploring some optimization plans, such as multidimensional gas (see https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip — 7706) and other related mechanisms I discussed on Twitter (https://x.com/VitalikButerin/status/1889013890291318838).
Question 25
In the Web3 ecosystem, some projects implement large — scale incentive programs, such as the “Odyssey” tasks, to attract a large number of users. Recently, projects like Bera Chain and Story Protocol have carried out long — term test — net activities, with hundreds of thousands or even millions of users seemingly participating. However, after the tokens are launched, the actual number of active users has significantly decreased, usually less than 1,000. This disparity is concerning: how many users are truly participating, and how many are just joining for the incentives? At the same time, this may also lead project teams to draw misleading conclusions from statistical data. Given your emphasis on decentralization and the construction of a real community, how do you view such practices? Do you think simply pursuing a large number of users, regardless of their actual activity, is in line with the essence of Web3? Or should projects focus more on cultivating a relatively small but highly active user base to ensure sustainable growth and genuine adoption?
Vitalik: “Attracting Developers through Community — Driven Approaches and Providing Sponsorship in Specific Areas When Necessary Is a Better Strategy”
I think such incentive programs are suitable for application testing, and the results can be either successful or unsuccessful. For Ethereum, first, our resources are not sufficient to carry out such large — scale programs. Second, we focus not only on the number of users but also on attracting the right developers. Finally, the type of developers we attract also matters a great deal. Therefore, I believe that using community — driven approaches to attract developers and providing sponsorship in specific areas when necessary is a better strategy, rather than relying too much on simple user incentives.
Question 26
Web3 is supposed to be a space where everyone is equal. However, Warpcast has introduced ranking and automatic comment/private — message folding mechanisms, creating an obvious hierarchical structure and essentially turning it into an exclusive social circle for a few influencers. Ordinary users, no matter how valuable their contributions are, find it difficult to get the attention they deserve. How do you view this growing phenomenon of concentrated attention in Web3 social platforms? Shouldn’t we strive for a system driven by ideas rather than social status?
Vitalik: “An Open Social Network + Autonomous Clients Is a Promising Model”
It’s very difficult to build a social media algorithm that is both fair and can effectively prevent spam attacks. Take Farcaster as an example. Its advantage lies in building an open network where various clients can participate. If a certain client performs poorly, anyone can develop their own client and start communicating with other users in the entire Farcaster network from day one. Therefore, I’m delighted with Tako, Firefly, and other clients in the ecosystem because if they can solve the problems that Warpcast hasn’t addressed yet, it will greatly improve the user experience.
Question 27
In the past year, have you ever felt frustrated or disappointed with the Ethereum Foundation, the community, or the entire industry? Looking back on this year, what events have particularly disappointed or frustrated you? Have you ever considered taking a break?
Vitalik: “I’m Disappointed When the Community Complains That Ethereum Isn’t Enough of a ‘Casino’”
Of course, there have been such moments. Perhaps the most disappointing thing recently was when someone claimed that Ethereum is not good or inclusive because we don’t show enough respect for “casinos” on the blockchain, while other chains are willing to accept any application. So when such a moral inversion occurs in the blockchain community, I lose interest in participating in the blockchain. However, I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon: many people say such things on the Internet, but when I communicate face — to — face with community members, their values are still similar to before. Therefore, I feel a sense of responsibility towards this community and can’t give up easily. We need to work together to create the ideal world. This may require some changes. For example, the foundation may not be completely neutral at the application layer and may need to consciously support certain projects, but I firmly believe this is a worthy thing to do.
Question 28
In the current “flourishing” state of the ecosystem, do you think Ethereum needs to strengthen interoperability — not just asset bridging but also actively connecting to external ecosystems through standardized cross — chain protocols (such as ERC — 7281)?
Vitalik: “The Primary Task Should Be to Improve the Interoperability between Ethereum L2s”
I think our primary task should be to improve the interoperability between Ethereum L2s because in this area, the interests of all parties are highly aligned, and it’s relatively easy to promote. After this foundation is solid, we can then expand to more cross — crypto — ecosystem interoperability and even connect the cryptocurrency and fiat — currency systems.
Related Links:
For the host Mable’s introduction and the motivation behind the interview, please see:
https://app.tako.so/cast?id=0x1c7d2d8682abf16c49c19631c38431b9dcc2675f&isShowFull=true)
Tako AMA link:
Follow us
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain
Telegram: https://t.me/wublockchainenglish