Written by: KarenZ, Foresight News

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

When you open this mission statement, you might wonder if you've wandered into the wrong movie—the screen is filled with stars, elves, magicians, and a layout resembling an anime poster. Peel back this cool exterior, and you'll find the current "ideological framework" of the Ethereum ecosystem.

TL;DR

EF's core positioning: It is a guardian, not a ruler. EF's ultimate goal is to pass the "walkaway test"—that is, even if the Ethereum Foundation were to dissolve tomorrow, the Ethereum network would still function perfectly.
The CROPS rule is the bottom line : any technology development must meet the requirements of censorship resistance, open source, privacy, and security. All four attributes are indispensable, and no development priority can supersede them.
EF's philosophy : The Ethereum Foundation will streamline its operations to make Ethereum more resilient. As the ecosystem matures, the Ethereum Foundation will gradually relinquish control.
There are things we should not do : We should not be "kingmakers," rating agencies, or marketing organizations that promote sales and hype, and we should not encourage treating Ethereum as a "big casino."
Ultimate Vision : Looking 1,000 years into the future, we aim to provide a “digital sanctuary” free from exploitation by power, capital, AI, and even families.

What problem does Ethereum actually want to solve?

EF believes that there are two essential infrastructure-level needs in the digital age: having control over one's own data, identity, and assets ( self-sovereignty ), and collaborating with others without being "held hostage" by anyone ( sovereignty preservation coordination) .

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

One passage in the manifesto states: Ethereum exists so that no one can "rug" you—whether it's a government, a company, an institution, or AI.

To achieve this goal, EF proposed an acronym: CROPS. This word appears 32 times in the manifesto.

Censorship Resistance : No one can stop you from doing legitimate things. No matter how much external pressure you face, you can maintain neutrality through cryptography.
Open Source & Free: All code and rules are laid out openly, with no hidden black boxes.
Privacy : Your data belongs to you, not the platform. You can decide who to share what information with.
Security : It involves protecting both the system and users from technical failures and coercion.

These four attributes are defined in the document as an "indivisible whole," which is the highest priority and the bottom line that cannot be compromised for any reason.

EF's stance is clear: they'd rather go slower than give up and get these things right from day one. Because once they give up, it's almost impossible to get them back.

What does the foundation do? What doesn't it do?

EF is making "making yourself unnecessary" the ultimate standard for success.

The document contains the term "walkaway test," which means: If EF disappears tomorrow, can Ethereum still run and continue to evolve on its own? EF's goal is to make the answer "yes."

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

At the same time, EF also drew up a long list of things it "won't do," which reads like a solemn disclaimer: not a company, not a kingmaker, not a certification body, not a product studio, not a marketing company, not a boss, not a government agency, not a casino, and not an opportunist.

When there is no standard answer, how will EF make its choice?

We've discussed many grand principles: CROPS, autonomy, and the philosophy of subtraction. But what do we do when faced with specific problems? This chapter provides the answer.

It's somewhat like a foundation's "decision-making algorithm": when faced with two paths, how do you choose one without betraying your original intention?

When choosing a technology solution, select the one that "won't hold you back in the future," even if it's slower now . The example in the document is transaction propagation: one solution has good performance but relies on a private relay network (whitelist system), while another solution is decentralized but progresses slowly. EF's answer is likely the latter, because once the former is implemented, "decentralization later" is unlikely to occur.
When designing or evaluating proposals, don't just look at the immediate layer; consider the impact on other layers . Some solutions may seem fine on their own, even conforming to CROPS principles, but when viewed within the broader ecosystem, they might create new problems elsewhere. Don't solve one problem while creating ten others.
User security is important, but don't make decisions for users. Only provide users with tools for self-defense; never impose "paternalistic" restrictions. Don't allow anyone to use the guise of "protecting users" to deprive users of their right to choose. For example, some wallets default to a "safe mode," secretly blocking certain contracts, redirecting users to specific platforms, or even using opaque AI to identify "risky operations" and secretly collecting user behavior data—all of which the foundation opposes. True protection means providing users with verifiable filtering tools and publicly defined blacklists and whitelists; regardless of the tool, privacy should be protected by default, and AI components are no exception.
If intermediaries are absolutely necessary, then remove barriers to entry and provide alternatives : If some sectors cannot avoid intermediaries, then lower the entry barriers to the minimum to allow for full market competition. At the same time, users must be provided with "intermediary-free" alternatives, and these alternatives must be easy to use and implement.
When choosing which teams to support, don't look at their social image; look at their actual technical choices . Many projects talk about CROPS (Creative Research, Professional Development, and Professional Services), but their actual designs often contain closed-source core components, implement whitelist restrictions, and guide users through fixed paths. Be wary of these.

Ideals are lofty, but reality is harsh.

This declaration was written with great force, but the realities of life have never ceased to challenge it.

Does this document represent a consensus among all parties, or merely the ideals of a few drafters? If EF were to change its leadership, would it still be valid? Who will oversee its implementation?

The more practical question is:

EF's operating funds heavily rely on its ETH holdings. A low ETH price leads to budget cuts. "Not caring about prices" is merely a matter of mental discipline, not financial reality.
CROPS rules are ideal rules, but the world doesn't operate according to CROPS.
What most users really care about is: how fast it is, how cheap it is, and how easy it is to use.
EF insists on being "completely CROPS from day one," but will this cause Ethereum to lag behind more "pragmatic" competitors in terms of user experience and commercialization?
How are EF's "doing" and "not doing" assessed? How is accountability enforced? How is the effectiveness of "coordination" determined?

The community is in an uproar: Punk ideals vs. disconnect from reality

Within 24 hours of the declaration's release, community feedback had already become polarized:

Critics:

Kydo, a researcher at Eigen Labs, bluntly stated that EF has now made a 180-degree turn, overturning its previous "pragmatic approach" of supporting stablecoins, institutional participation, and RWA, and marginalizing the most marketable applications at present.
The chairman of Forward Ind. complained: "They build whatever they want, not what you want"—accusing EF of building only according to idealism, ignoring the needs of the community and the market;
Hazeflow founder Pavel Paramonov called it "another bunch of ideological nonsense" that failed to clarify Ethereum's future direction.

supporter:

Namefi founder Zainan Victor Zhou believes this is a constraint on the EF organization, rather than a restriction on the entire ecosystem;
Columbia Business School professor Omid Malekan points out that CROPS is precisely the fundamental reason for Ethereum's leading position in the financial field—it provides true "access rights + verifiability + intellectual property protection".

In response to the controversy, Vitalik personally clarified that the declaration was "not surprising to many" and was also the direction EF had been considering over the past few months. EF will only act as a guardian of Ethereum, leaving everything else to the broader ecosystem—this is the beginning of a new chapter.

The declaration concludes with an Italian phrase: "E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle"—from Dante's *Divine Comedy*, Inferno, which literally means "And so we came out and saw the stars again."

EF also created a meme called "SOURCE SEPPUKU LICENSE," which reads: "If the foundation fails to keep its solemn commitment to Ethereum, let it suffer the consequences and end its own life."

EF likens itself to a traveler traversing hell, determined to advance towards the stars of "digital freedom," even amidst real-world hardships and skepticism. Time will tell.

数据：以太坊Gas费升至230GWei附近，过去1小时销毁逾1000枚ETH

Popular Articles