Ethereum loses direction: When the core team lacks consensus

Ethereum is not failing because of Solana or any new blockchain — the problem lies within itself. Over the past few years, when the Ethereum core team has lacked a unified strategy, the entire ecosystem has fallen into a state of “building without knowing the goal.” Layer 2 solutions have grown rapidly, but Ethereum Layer 1 is gradually losing its role — a symptom of a deeper identity crisis.

The endless debate over replacing practical development strategies

The Ethereum community spends too much energy discussing hypothetical questions:

• Which Layer 2 truly embodies “Ethereum-ness”?
• Is using Layer 2 still considered using Ethereum?
• Is decentralization about relinquishing control or choosing it?

In reality, Arbitrum and Base grew because they understand what users need: liquidity, ease of use, diverse applications. Things like Stage 1, Stage 2, or complex technical upgrades? Only developers care, users don’t. But that’s also where Ethereum’s core team is going off course.

Growing Layer 2 ecosystem but losing trust in Ethereum

Layer 2 solutions are not functioning as the theories predicted:

• Base only shares a tiny fraction of revenue with Ethereum — this model resembles a private agreement more than a collaborative effort.
• Most Layer 2s still control transaction ordering — they talk about decentralization, but key decisions remain centralized.
• Layer 2 tokens cannot create sustainable value — because fees still have to be paid in ETH.

When financial interests are prioritized, lofty claims about “community” and “decentralization” immediately become untrustworthy.

The issue is financial, not technical

There’s a detail no one wants to admit: the pillars of Ethereum are leaving.

• Some core developers have left the Ethereum Foundation.
• Major investment funds that once trusted Ethereum have shifted support to new chains.
• Polygon, despite years of contribution, remains on the “periphery.”

When the core team is no longer united, and those who once believed most are switching sides, it indicates that the problem isn’t technology — it’s organization and value sharing.

Ethereum no longer knows who it is

Even more dangerously — Ethereum has lost its sense of identity:

• Is it a store of value asset?
• A commodity like gold?
• Just a token for paying Layer 2 fees?
• A “stock” of an ecosystem that’s fragmenting?

As narratives change every year, investors don’t know what they own. And when strategic decisions depend on a single individual (Vitalik), the concept of “decentralization” becomes a self-deception.

The core team recognizes the problem — but is it too late?

Recently, Vitalik has begun to admit: focusing only on Layer 2 is not enough; Ethereum needs to return to scaling Layer 1. The Ethereum Foundation is also taking steps: restructuring personnel, increasing transparency.

But the market waits for no one.

Ethereum no longer has much time to “slow down but be sure.” If the core team doesn’t accelerate problem-solving, Ethereum will gradually fall behind. Ethereum must choose:

To get back on the right track, prioritize developers and users, and build a truly comprehensive ecosystem — or let ETH become a relic token in cryptocurrency history?

That is the question the Ethereum core team must answer before it’s too late.