Ethereum Dev Claims Vitalik’s Circle Controls Ethereum Governance

• Péter Szilágyi’s leaked letter accuses Ethereum of centralization and insider influence.
• The letter claims Vitalik Buterin’s inner circle dominates key Ethereum project decisions.
• The revelations reignite debate over centralization in Ether’s core decision-making structure.

A leaked letter from Ethereum core developer Péter Szilágyi has reignited debate over Ethereum’s decentralization and internal power structure. The letter, written in May 2024, reveals deep frustration with how decision-making occurs inside the Ethereum Foundation. According to Szilágyi, many key projects are controlled by a small group of people who are close to co-founder Vitalik Buterin.

His remarks provoked heated debate among the crypto community. Many questioned whether Ethereum’s governance actually reflects decentralization or has turned into a form of concentrated control.

Concerns Over Centralized Influence

Szilágyi, who helped lead the Geth client development, said Ethereum’s structure rewards proximity to influence rather than merit. He called himself a “useful fool” in a system that values loyalty over contribution. He claims that internal politics and financial interests have eclipsed Ethereum’s values of justice and cooperation.

He argued that while senior executives profit from expanding financial networks, developers are underpaid. Szilágyi said this imbalance forced some developers to seek compensation through external partnerships, resulting in conflicts of interest. He cautioned that these circumstances lead to “protocol capture,” in which a small group of insiders influences how the network develops.

In his letter, Szilágyi expressed disappointment with what Ethereum had become. He said the ecosystem had drifted far from its original vision of openness. “We built something great, but we’ll shed all our principles once money enters the room,” he wrote. His words reflected a sense of betrayal shared by other contributors who remain silent for fear of losing influence.

Vitalik’s Circle and the Debate Over Control

Szilágyi’s letter focused heavily on Vitalik Buterin’s role in shaping Ethereum’s trajectory. He described Buterin as an unintentional “kingmaker” whose attention and approval determine which projects succeed. According to the developer, a small circle of five to ten figures now dominates Ethereum’s direction. This influence, he said, is reinforced by ties to one to three venture capital firms.

Szilágyi pointed to projects like Farcaster as examples of how proximity to Buterin and his circle can define success. He argued that Ethereum’s structure appears decentralized but hides a centralization of influence. In his view, innovation now follows relationships rather than open merit.

Related: Ethereum Leads in Developers, Solana Dominates Momentum

After he revealed the letter, reactions poured in across social media. ACY Securities commented that if Szilágyi’s claims were accurate, Ethereum faces a “governance flaw – decentralization in code but centralization in influence.” The remark summarized the main concern echoed by analysts and developers alike.

Other prominent voices in the crypto community also joined the debate. Sandeep Nailwal, CEO of Polygon Foundation, wrote on X that he had “started questioning” his loyalty to Ethereum. He said Polygon had never received direct support from the Ethereum Foundation despite aligning with its ecosystem. Nailwal’s post implied that internal favoritism may have limited collaboration.

Andre Cronje, co-founder of Sonic Labs, also criticized Ethereum’s leadership. He said he had faced difficulties getting responses from Foundation executives and described poor communication within its core team.

Vitalik Buterin has not directly addressed Szilágyi’s allegations. However, he posted on X shortly after the story emerged, praising Polygon’s early work on zero-knowledge technology. His message highlighted contributions by Jordi Baylina’s team and the AggLayer infrastructure, showing continued engagement with community projects.

Szilágyi ended his letter expressing uncertainty about his future in the ecosystem. He said he felt “stuck between two hard places.” His tone suggested exhaustion rather than resignation but reflected deep unease with Ethereum’s internal governance.