Finding answers through the noise: Why Ethereum's values are the true moat

Recent discussions within the Ethereum community remain lively, but behind this noise lies a frequently overlooked issue: many of the controversies stem not from the technology itself, but from differing understandings of what Ethereum “wants to become” as a system.

On one side are intense technical debates about Rollup architecture, Interoperability, ZK, PBS, and other technical details; on the other are emotional debates centered around “Ethereum Foundation’s attitude,” “why not more aggressive,” and “token price performance.” These seemingly opposing phenomena actually point to the same deeper dilemma: how do we choose between short-term performance pressures and long-term system survival?

Understanding this is the key to truly penetrating the noise and seeing why Ethereum makes many decisions that seem “out of time.”

The real issue behind the noise: Is Ethereum improving or regressing?

Many observers are confused: while other blockchains continuously improve TPS, TVL, and user experience metrics, Ethereum keeps revisiting architecture design, outsourcing execution, interoperability mechanisms, and finality issues. This has led many to question—Is Ethereum being marginalized?

This question deserves a serious answer. But to find the true answer, one cannot just look at recent one or two years of technical choices; the timeline must be extended to a longer cycle.

Over the past decade, many high-performance blockchains have taken a more direct route: reducing validator nodes, raising hardware requirements, centralizing ordering and execution rights to achieve maximum performance and user experience. This strategy has been effective in the short term. But from Ethereum’s perspective, such speed often comes at the expense of “anti-fragility.”

Here’s an often-overlooked but highly illustrative fact: In the past ten years of operation, Ethereum has never experienced a network shutdown or rollback, maintaining continuous 7×24×365 operation. This is not luck but a consistent design philosophy—whether the system can keep running under the worst conditions is prioritized over raw performance metrics.

In other words, Ethereum appears slow not because it cannot be faster, but because it keeps asking a harder question: when the network scales up, with more participants and a less friendly environment, can this system still operate reliably?

Thus, what seems like “stagnation” over these ten years is actually a proactive endurance for longer-term survival, accepting short-term pains.

Alignment is not a loyalty test but a mutual social contract

Because of this, the first step in understanding Ethereum is accepting a less-than-popular but crucial fact: Ethereum does not pursue “maximized efficiency” as its sole goal; its core pursuit is “remaining trustworthy even in the worst-case scenarios.”

This also explains why, in the Ethereum context, many seemingly technical issues are fundamentally value choices: Should decentralization be sacrificed for speed? Should powerful nodes be introduced for higher throughput? Should security assumptions be handed over to a few entities for better user experience?

Ethereum’s answers to these questions are often no. That’s why the community instinctively remains cautious about all “shortcuts”—“Can it be done” always takes a backseat to “Should it be done.”

In this context, “Alignment” has become one of the most controversial concepts recently. Some worry it might become a tool for moral coercion or rent-seeking.

This concern is not unfounded. As early as September 2024, Vitalik Buterin explicitly pointed out this risk in “Making Ethereum alignment legible,” stating: “If ‘alignment’ means whether you have the right connections, then the concept itself has already failed.”

Vitalik’s solution is not to abandon alignment but to make it transparent, decomposable, and discussable. He believes alignment should not be a vague political stance but broken down into specific, examinable dimensions:

• Technical alignment: Are you using Ethereum’s security consensus? Do you support open source and open standards?
• Economic alignment: Are you promoting long-term ETH value creation rather than one-way cashing out?
• Ideological alignment: Are you pursuing the public interest rather than predatory growth?

From this perspective, alignment is not a loyalty test but a mutual symbiotic social contract. The Ethereum ecosystem allows chaos, competition, and even fierce race among Layer 2s; but ultimately, these activities should give back to the main chain that provides security, consensus, and settlement.

Decentralization and censorship resistance: the two pillars that keep the system alive

If “alignment” defines the boundary of values, then what truly sustains this boundary are Ethereum’s two long-standing foundational pillars: decentralization and censorship resistance.

In the Ethereum context, “decentralization” does not mean more nodes are always better, nor does it require everyone to run a node. Its true meaning is: the system can operate normally without trusting any single participant. This means the protocol should not rely on a particular sequencer, coordinator, or company; at the same time, node operation costs must be manageable for ordinary people, ensuring that regular users can verify the system’s proper operation.

Because of this, Ethereum maintains restraint on hardware requirements, bandwidth, and state bloat—even if it slows down some short-term performance metrics. In Ethereum’s view, a system that is fast but cannot be verified by ordinary users has fundamentally lost the meaning of “permissionless.”

Another often misunderstood value is censorship resistance. Ethereum does not assume the world is friendly; instead, it presumes participants may seek profit, power may concentrate, and external pressures will occur. Therefore, censorship resistance does not mean “no one will ever censor,” but rather that even if someone attempts to censor, the system will not fail.

This is why Ethereum places great importance on proposer/builder separation, decentralized construction, and sophisticated economic incentives—not because these mechanisms are technically elegant, but because they ensure the system can continue operating under the worst conditions.

Some may ask: “Do such extreme scenarios really happen in reality?” But the truth is, if a system is only safe in an ideal world, then it’s not worth trusting in the real world.

Interestingly, amid all the noise and doubts, the current Ethereum PoS staking withdrawal queue is nearly empty, while the staking queue continues to grow, surpassing 1.57 million ETH. This data speaks louder than any declaration—despite the controversy, many participants are choosing to lock their assets long-term into this system.

Why “conservative” is actually the most radical choice

Many critics say Ethereum is always “discussing philosophy after others have already launched.” But from another perspective, it is precisely these seemingly tedious discussions that have helped Ethereum avoid repeated rebuilds from scratch.

Whether it’s the roadmap centered on Rollups, the gradual introduction of ZK, or the evolution directions like Interoperability, fast finality, and shorter slots, they all follow the same premise: all performance improvements must fit within existing safety and value assumptions.

This explains why Ethereum’s evolution often appears “conservative yet steady.” In essence, it’s not that Ethereum doesn’t pursue efficiency, but that it refuses to exchange current short-term advantages for future systemic risks.

In an era obsessed with “efficiency and TVL,” this persistence may seem out of place but also invaluable. It is the underlying spirit that has supported Ethereum through ten years—and the most scarce and precious element in the Web3 ecosystem.

Beyond the noise, we realize that those controversial decisions are actually answers to the same question: how can a system both progress and remain trustworthy at all times?

(Content adapted from an article co-produced by imToken and PANews)