Original author: KarenZ, Foresight News

On the evening of March 13, the board of the Ethereum Foundation (EF) released a mission statement titled "EF Mandate".

When you open this mission statement, you might wonder if you have entered the wrong venue — the screen is filled with stars, elves, wizards, and a layout reminiscent of anime posters. Peeling away this flashy exterior reveals the "ideological program" of the current Ethereum ecosystem.

TL;DR

• EF's core positioning: Guardian, not Ruler. The ultimate goal of EF is to ensure that through the "Walkaway Test" — even if the Ethereum Foundation disbands tomorrow, the Ethereum network can still operate perfectly.
• CROPS Iron Law is the Bottom Line: Any technical development must meet the requirements of Censorship Resistance, Open Source, Privacy, and Security. All four attributes are essential, and no developmental priority can override them.
• EF's working philosophy: Foundation does subtraction, so Ethereum can be more resilient. When the ecosystem matures enough, the Ethereum Foundation will gradually decentralize power.
• Things not to do: Not to become a "kingmaker", not to be a rating agency, not to act as a marketing agency that promotes products, and even less to encourage treating Ethereum as a "big casino."
• Ultimate vision: Focused on the next 1000 years, providing a "digital sanctuary" free from exploitation by power, capital, AI, or even family.

What problems does Ethereum aim to solve?

EF believes that there are two basic infrastructural necessities in the digital age: controlling one’s own data, identity, and assets (self-sovereignty), and collaborating with others without being "choked" by anyone (sovereign-preserving coordination).

If you only pursue the first point, running an application locally is sufficient; if you only pursue the second point, the traditional internet will suffice. Ethereum's unique value lies in achieving both.

There is a statement in the declaration that says: The existence of Ethereum is to make it impossible for anyone to "rug" you — whether it is a government, a company, an institution, or AI.

Around this goal, EF proposed an acronym: CROPS. This term appears 32 times in the declaration.

• Censorship Resistance: No one can stop you from doing legal things, and external pressures are neutralized by cryptography.
• Open Source & Free: All codes and rules are disclosed, with no hidden black boxes.
• Privacy: Your data is yours, not the platform's. You can decide what information to share with whom.
• Security: Both the system and the users need protection from harm, including technical failures and coercion.

These four attributes are defined in the document as "an inseparable whole," representing the highest priority and are non-negotiable regardless of the reason.

EF's stance is clear: better to be slow and do things right from day one. Because once you give up, it is nearly impossible to get it back.

What does the foundation do? What does it not do?

EF is making "becoming unnecessary" its ultimate success criterion.

There is a term in the document called "walkaway test," meaning: If EF disappeared tomorrow, could Ethereum still run and continue evolving on its own? EF's goal is to ensure the answer is "yes."

Therefore, EF is practicing a philosophy of "subtractive development": focusing on key matters that no one else in the ecosystem can or is willing to undertake — core protocol upgrades, long-term technology research, and public safety assurance. Once a community can take over a certain area, EF will hand it off, further reducing its relative influence.

At the same time, EF has also drawn up a long list of "not to do" items, which reads like a serious disclaimer: not a company, not a kingmaker, not a certification agency, not a product studio, not a marketing company, not an employer, not a government agency, not a casino, not opportunistic.

How will EF make choices when there are no standard answers?

We have talked a lot about ideals: CROPS, self-sovereignty, and subtractive philosophy. But what to do when faced with specific problems? This chapter provides the answer.

It resembles the "decision-making algorithm" of the foundation: when faced with two paths, how to choose without going against the original intention?

• When selecting technical solutions, choose the one that "won't choke in the future," even if it is slower now. An example in the document is transaction propagation: one solution performs well but relies on a private relay network (whitelist), while another is decentralized but progresses slowly. EF's answer might be the latter, because once the former is implemented, "decentralization later" will unlikely happen.
• When designing or evaluating proposals, don’t just look at the immediate layer; think about the implications for other layers. Some solutions may seem fine on their own and even comply with CROPS principles, but in the context of the entire ecosystem, they may create new problems elsewhere. Don't solve one problem only to create ten more.
• User security is essential, but do not make decisions for users. Only provide users with tools for autonomous defense, never impose "parental" restrictions, and do not allow anyone to use the banner of "protecting users" to deprive users of their autonomy. For example, some wallets enable "safety mode" by default, secretly blocking certain contracts, redirecting users to designated platforms, or using opaque AI to determine "risky operations," while also secretly collecting user behavior, all of which the foundation opposes. True protection is providing users with verifiable filtering tools and publicly regulated black-and-white lists; regardless of the tool, the default should always protect privacy, AI components included.
• Need intermediaries? Lower the barriers and leave a way out: If certain fields currently cannot avoid intermediaries, then bring the entry threshold down to the minimum, allow for full market competition, while also providing users with a "no intermediaries" alternative that is practical and usable.
• When choosing which teams to support, look at actual technical choices rather than social halos. Many projects mouth the words "CROPS" but hide closed-source core components, impose whitelist restrictions, or guide users down fixed paths; these should be approached with caution.

Ideals are rich, but reality is stark

This declaration is written forcefully, but the questioning of reality has never stopped.

Does this document represent the consensus of the entirety or just the ideals of a few authors? If EF changes personnel, will it still count? Who will supervise its execution?

A more realistic question is:

• EF's operational funds largely depend on the ETH assets it holds. When the ETH price is sluggish, the budget will be squeezed. "Not caring about the price" is merely mental discipline, not financial reality.
• The CROPS rules are ideal, but the world does not operate according to CROPS.
• Most users genuinely care about: speed, cost, and usability.
• EF insists on being completely CROPS from day one, but will this cause Ethereum to lag behind more "pragmatic" competitors in user experience and commercialization?
• How will EF's "doing" and "not doing" be evaluated? How will accountability be enforced? How will it be determined if "coordination" is effective?

The community is in uproar: punk ideals vs. reality disconnect

Less than 24 hours after the declaration was released, community feedback has become polarized:

Critics:

• Kydo, a researcher at Eigen Labs, bluntly stated that EF's current direction represents a 180-degree turn, overturning the previously supported pragmatic route of stablecoins, institutional entry, and RWAs, marginalizing the currently most marketable applications;
• Forward Ind. Chairman complained: "They want to build whatever they want, not what you want" — accusing EF of building solely according to idealism while ignoring community and market demands;
• Pavel Paramonov, founder of Hazeflow, referred to it as "yet another pile of ideological nonsense," failing to clarify the specific direction Ethereum will take next.

Supporters:

• Zainan Victor Zhou, founder of Namefi, believes this is a constraint on the EF organization, not a limitation on the entire ecosystem;
• Omid Malekan, a professor at Columbia Business School, pointed out that CROPS is precisely what gives Ethereum its leadership in the financial sector — it offers true "access + verifiability + property protection".

In response to the controversy, Vitalik personally stepped in to clarify: This declaration "is not surprising to many" and reflects the direction EF has been considering for the past few months. EF is only to be the guardian of Ethereum, leaving everything else to the broader ecosystem — this marks the starting point of a new chapter.

In conclusion, the declaration ends with an Italian phrase: "E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle" — taken from Dante's "Divine Comedy: Inferno," literally meaning "And so we emerged to see the stars once more."

EF also created a meme titled "SOURCE SEPPUKU LICENSE," which reads: "If the foundation fails to uphold its solemn commitment to Ethereum, let it face the consequences and end itself."

EF compares itself to a wanderer traversing through hell, enduring the trials and doubts of reality, yet moving forward towards the stars of "digital freedom." Of course, time will provide the answer.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。