Author: Macauley Peterson, Blockworks; Translated by: Deng Tong, Jinse Finance.

The Ethereum Community is at a cultural crossroads, and the intense reactions triggered by the departure of outstanding contributor Max Resnick reveal deeper tensions surrounding governance and dissent. Resnick's criticism of Ethereum's governance and scalability approach drew overwhelmingly negative reactions, including accusations of being a 'Solana factory' and other personal attacks. These responses highlight broader issues in the Ethereum social layer and decision-making process.

Extremism in Ethereum.

Ethereum extremism has begun to reflect some less constructive characteristics of Bitcoin extremism. The debate over increasingly suppressed dissent is rampant, with critics labeled as outsiders or opponents. Although Resnick's criticisms highlight real challenges, they have also met with hostility. His communication style is often perceived as confrontational, alienating key contributors. Some in the community see his departure as a positive factor, reinforcing shared values and emphasizing that dissent must be constructive to avoid division.

This is not unique to Resnick. Jon Charbonneau and others have also challenged the idea of decentralization as an abstract ideal, arguing that it stifles productive debate in practice. Charbonneau wrote in his blog post 'Polaris of Ethereum': 'If decentralization is the only goal, then why not lower the block gas limit, reduce the number of blobs, and increase slot time? Often, shouting “Aha! This is sacrificing decentralization!” is merely a way to shut down productive debates.'

Charbonneau emphasizes that Ethereum needs to define its unique purpose. He urges the community to adhere to long-term principles, avoiding decisions driven by short-term dynamics.

Social Layer: Advantage or Disadvantage?

Ethereum's reliance on social consensus has long been praised as a decentralized alternative to formal governance. However, this approach has its drawbacks. Even though Ethereum's core development process operates transparently and attracts diverse stakeholders, decision-making often appears to be dominated by loud, influential voices on platforms like Twitter.

Core developers follow a consensus-driven process and build openly to ensure that decisions reflect a wide range of opinions. This process resists formal capture, but if dissenting voices are excluded, it risks stagnation. Resnick regularly contributes to Eth Research, sharing insights on scalability and governance, but he does not participate in ACD calls and does not engage extensively in events.

Lessons from Bitcoin.

The rise of Bitcoin, including its surge to 0.1 million USD, is not solely driven by extremism. It stems from ongoing advocacy efforts that engage governments, institutions, and the public in building a strong socio-economic narrative. In contrast, Ethereum has largely avoided real-world advocacy, focusing instead on maintaining its decentralized spirit.

The future of Ethereum depends on the balance between belief and inclusivity. The community must recognize that relying solely on technological advancements is not enough—strong cultural foundations are equally important. Purity tests and uncontrolled extremism can stifle innovation and debate, so mechanisms must be introduced to facilitate open dialogue without undermining decentralization.

Ethereum's greatest strength lies in its adaptability. By addressing cultural challenges head-on, the community can retain valuable contributors and ensure Ethereum's leadership as a decentralized, inclusive ecosystem.