That Ethereum "itch" — how values become the broadest moat

Over the past period, a clear sense of division has emerged within the Ethereum community. On one hand, there are in-depth technical discussions, ranging from scalability, Rollup architecture, to interoperability, ZK, PBS, and other topics; on the other hand, there are fierce debates about the foundation’s attitude, development pace, and token price performance. This contradiction points to a more fundamental question: what kind of system does Ethereum ultimately want to become?

In fact, the root of many disputes is not technical divergence, but differences in understanding of Ethereum’s “core premises.” Only by returning to these premises can we understand why Ethereum makes choices that seem “untimely” but are unwavering.

Ecosystem Dilemma or Long-term Test? Dissecting Ethereum’s “Ten-Year Itch”

Recently, the Ethereum community has not been peaceful. From reflections on the Rollup path, to debates over the “alignment” concept, to comparisons with high-performance public chains, a deep “Ethereum anxiety” continues to ferment, manifesting as an invisible yet spreading “itch.”

The source of this anxiety is not hard to understand. While competitors keep pushing TPS, TVL, and user experience metrics, Ethereum is repeatedly discussing architecture splitting, execution outsourcing, interoperability protocols, and finality issues. These discussions are neither intuitive nor easy to turn into highlights, naturally leading outsiders to question—Is Ethereum “degenerating”?

But if we look at a longer timeline, the answer becomes clearer. Over the past decade, many emerging high-performance public chains have taken a more direct route: reducing node count, raising hardware requirements, centralizing ordering mechanisms to achieve extreme performance and user experience. The Ethereum community believes that such speed often comes at the cost of system resilience.

A frequently overlooked but compelling fact is: In nearly ten years of operation, Ethereum has never experienced a network-wide shutdown or rollback, maintaining 7×24×365 stability. This is not luck, but stems from its design philosophy—since inception, Ethereum has prioritized “whether the system can still operate under the worst conditions” over performance metrics.

From another perspective, Ethereum’s slower pace is not because it cannot go faster, but because it is asking a more difficult question: When the network scales, more participants, and external environments become less friendly, can this system continue to operate?

From this vantage point, the so-called “Ten-Year Itch” is not decline, but a proactive endurance of short-term doubts and discomforts for longer-term survival.

Beyond Loyalty Tests: Reinterpreting the True Meaning of “Alignment”

To truly understand Ethereum’s choices, the first step is to accept a somewhat unpalatable but crucial fact: Ethereum does not see “maximizing efficiency” as its sole goal; its core pursuit is “being trustworthy even in the worst case.”

This explains why many discussions that seem technical in Ethereum’s context are fundamentally value choices: Should decentralization be sacrificed for speed? Should powerful nodes be introduced for throughput? Should security assumptions be handed over to a few for better user experience?

Ethereum’s answer is usually no. Because of this, the community maintains an almost instinctive vigilance towards various technical shortcuts—“Can it be done” always takes a backseat to “Should it be done.”

It is in this context that the concept of “alignment” (Alignment) has become one of the most controversial topics. Some worry it could evolve into a label for moral coercion or a tool for rent-seeking. These concerns are not unfounded. As early as September 2024, Vitalik Buterin explicitly pointed out this risk in “Making Ethereum alignment legible”:

“If ‘alignment’ means whether you have the right friends, then the concept itself has already failed.”

Vitalik’s solution is not to abandon alignment but to make it explainable, decomposable, and discussable. In his view, alignment should not be a vague political stance but broken down into a set of specific, examinable attributes:

• Technical Alignment: Does it use Ethereum’s security consensus? Does it uphold open-source and open standards?
• Economic Alignment: Does it promote long-term ETH value capture rather than one-way extraction?
• Ethical/Spiritual Alignment: Does it pursue public good rather than predatory growth?

From this perspective, alignment is not a loyalty test but a mutualistic social contract. The Ethereum ecosystem allows chaos, competition, and even fierce rivalry among L2s; but ultimately, these activities should feed back into the main system that provides security, consensus, and settlement.

Decentralization and Censorship Resistance—Two Pillars Supporting the Moat

If “alignment” defines the boundary of values, then the true support for this boundary comes from two long-standing core pillars: decentralization and censorship resistance.

Many misunderstand “decentralization,” thinking it simply means more nodes. In Ethereum’s context, true decentralization means: The system can operate normally without trusting any single participant. This implies that the protocol should not rely on a particular sequencer, coordinator, or company; and also that node operation costs should not be so high that only institutions can afford them, otherwise ordinary users cannot verify whether the system is functioning according to rules.

For this reason, Ethereum has maintained restraint on hardware requirements, bandwidth, and state bloat—even if this slows down short-term performance. To Ethereum, a system that is fast but cannot be verified by ordinary people has fundamentally lost the meaning of “permissionless.”

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

This is why Ethereum emphasizes mechanisms like Proposer/Builder separation, decentralized construction, and economic game design. These are not just elegant in design—they are essential because they enable the system to continue functioning under the worst conditions.

In many discussions, people ask: “Do such extreme scenarios really happen in reality?” The answer is simple—if a system is only safe in an ideal world, then it is not trustworthy in the real world.

Stakeholders Voting with Their Feet: Proof by Commitment

Amidst these debates and doubts, one set of data is worth noting. Currently, the queue for exiting stakers in Ethereum’s PoS is nearly empty, while the queue for entering staking continues to grow, with staked amounts reaching new highs.

In all the debates about Ethereum’s future, these stakers are casting their votes with their actions—they choose to lock their assets in this system for the long term. Perhaps more than any declaration, this shows their confidence: they are not forced to believe in Ethereum, but do so based on their understanding and recognition of its underlying logic.

Final Words

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

Whether it’s the Rollup-centric route, the gradual introduction of ZK, or upgrades like Interop, fast finality, and slot shortening, they all unfold under the same premise: All performance improvements must be compatible with existing security and value assumptions.

This also explains why Ethereum’s evolution often appears “conservative yet steady.” Ultimately, it is not that Ethereum does not pursue efficiency, but that it refuses to trade current systemic risks for short-term gains.

This persistence is the underlying spirit that has supported Ethereum’s ecosystem through ten years, and in an era obsessed with “efficiency” and TVL competitions, it is the most scarce and valuable aspect of Web3 to protect. The “itch” dilemma is essentially the pain that comes with this steadfastness—both a choice and a test.