Leaked Letter: Ethereum Dev Says Vitalik’s Circle Controls the Network
TLDR:
Péter Szilágyi’s leaked letter accused Ethereum Foundation of power centralization around Vitalik Buterin’s circle.
He claimed Ethereum’s success now depends on relationships with 5–10 key figures tied to venture capital firms.
The developer warned that underpayment and outside advisorships risked “protocol capture” and internal conflicts.
Community responses stressed Ethereum’s “decentralized code but centralized influence,” echoing governance concerns.
A leaked letter from Ethereum core developer Péter Szilágyi has reopened the debate over power concentration inside the Ethereum Foundation.
The letter, sent in May 2024 and revealed by Wu Blockchain, outlines his frustrations with how influence is distributed across the network. Szilágyi claims that most key projects are controlled by a small inner circle closely linked to Vitalik Buterin.
His statements paint a picture of Ethereum’s decentralization being more ideal than practice. The revelations have sparked renewed scrutiny from the crypto community over how governance really works within Ethereum.
Ethereum Developer Questions Decentralization and Leadership
Szilágyi wrote that Ethereum’s ecosystem is “failing” him due to internal contradictions between its stated values and actual decision-making. He said his role within the Foundation had been misrepresented, describing himself as a “useful fool” in a structure that rewards loyalty to influence rather than merit.
According to the letter, Szilágyi argued that Ethereum has drifted from its founding ideals.
He suggested that financial motives have replaced the original principles of open collaboration and fairness. The developer claimed that projects succeed mainly based on their closeness to a small group of powerful figures and venture capital firms surrounding Vitalik Buterin.
He also expressed concern about how the Foundation’s financial policies have shaped this dynamic. Underpaid developers, he said, were often forced to seek outside compensation through advisorships and partnerships, creating conflicts of interest.
Szilágyi noted that such practices opened the door for what he called “protocol capture,” where a handful of actors influence critical network directions.
His words echoed frustrations shared privately by other developers, who, he claimed, had faced similar moral and financial dilemmas.
“We built something great, but we’ll shed all our principles once money enters the room,” Szilágyi stated in the letter.
Vitalik’s Influence and the Inner Circle Debate
The letter described Vitalik Buterin as an unintentional “kingmaker” whose opinions shape Ethereum’s success patterns.
Szilágyi claimed that Buterin’s attention, donations, and endorsements dictate which projects thrive. He added that a small circle of five to ten figures now controls which ventures rise within the network, linking this influence to one to three major venture capital firms.
Szilágyi pointed to projects like Farcaster as examples of how proximity to Vitalik or his network could define success. He warned that Ethereum’s supposed decentralization in structure hides a deeper centralization of influence, where relationships outweigh innovation.
Wu Blockchain shared the letter publicly, bringing attention to Szilágyi’s claims. The crypto community quickly responded, debating whether Ethereum had drifted from its decentralized promise.
ACY Securities commented on the post, stating that
“if true, it exposes a governance flaw: decentralization in code but centralization in influence.”
The statement captured the sentiment now circulating across crypto circles, Ethereum may be decentralized by design but increasingly centralized in power.
Szilágyi ended his message by admitting uncertainty about his future in the ecosystem, saying he feels “stuck between two hard places.” The letter’s tone suggested deep frustration rather than resignation but underscored growing unease about Ethereum’s leadership structure.
