The Ethereum ecosystem has entered a new era with the official launch of the Ethereum Community Foundation (ECF), announced by core developer Zak Cole on July 1. This bold initiative positions itself as a counterbalance to the long-standing Ethereum Foundation (EF), challenging its governance model, funding priorities, and philosophical approach to ETH’s role in the global financial system.
Cole didn’t hold back in his inaugural address, delivering sharp criticism of the EF’s perceived detachment from economic reality. He accused the foundation of prioritizing abstract ideals over tangible outcomes—particularly the health and value of ETH itself. In contrast, ECF is built on three core principles: stabilizing ETH’s price, ensuring full transparency, and funding only projects that burn ETH—never issuing new tokens.
This isn’t just a philosophical shift. It’s a strategic reorientation of how public infrastructure should be funded and governed within the Ethereum ecosystem.
ETH Is Money—Not Just a Philosophy Experiment
One of Cole’s most direct statements was this: ETH is money. Not just a utility token or a speculative asset, but a legitimate form of programmable currency capable of competing with gold and sovereign fiat.
“When BlackRock launched its spot Ethereum ETF, they called it programmable money. But the EF still refuses to treat ETH as an asset. We will.”
This reframing is central to ECF’s mission. Cole argues that ETH’s price isn’t a side effect—it’s foundational to network security and global adoption. A higher market cap strengthens Ethereum’s position as a settlement layer for global finance.
To achieve this, ECF has set a clear target: **a $1.2 trillion market cap for ETH**. At current valuations, that would require ETH to reach around $10,000 per coin—assuming a stable circulating supply. But Cole insists this isn’t fantasy; it’s necessity.
“If we want Ethereum to serve as a global store of value and settlement mechanism,” he said, “we need scale, credibility, and economic gravity. That starts with valuing ETH itself.”
The L2 Subsidy Problem: Who Pays for Growth?
A major point of contention is how Ethereum handles Layer 2 (L2) scaling solutions. Cole criticized the EF’s implementation of EIP-4844, which introduced blob transactions to reduce L2 costs.
While praised for improving scalability, Cole argues it came at a steep cost: ETH holders are subsidizing L2 growth without receiving value in return.
“Rollups wanted cheaper data space—and EF bent the knee. Now blobs are effectively free, but ETH gets sold off to pay for it. Meanwhile, projects like Optimism and Arbitrum raise hundreds of millions from VCs, issue their own tokens, and give nothing back to the ecosystem that enabled them.”
His concern? A growing imbalance where L2s extract value from Ethereum while contributing little in return. Many L2 teams have launched governance tokens, enriched early investors, and created parallel economies—all without mechanisms to reinvest in ETH or the base layer.
This, Cole says, is not decentralization—it’s privatization of public infrastructure.
👉 See how next-generation blockchain funding models are flipping the script on value creation.
Failed Promises: ENS and Uniswap Revisited
Cole also revisited two high-profile projects originally supported by the EF: ENS (Ethereum Name Service) and Uniswap.
Both were initially framed as public goods. For ENS, there was even a proposal to use registration fees to burn ETH—directly benefiting holders by reducing supply. Instead, ENS launched its own token and established a DAO controlled by a relatively small group of early adopters.
Similarly, Uniswap—developed with indirect EF support—became one of the most successful DeFi platforms but primarily enriched venture capitalists who held early stakes in UNI.
“Publicly funded projects should remain public goods—not exit ramps for private profit.”
These cases exemplify what ECF sees as systemic failure: well-intentioned funding leading to centralized outcomes that don’t loop back to strengthen ETH or empower everyday users.
ECF’s Funding Principles: Burn ETH, Build Immutable Infrastructure
In response, ECF has laid out strict criteria for future funding:
- ✅ Projects must burn ETH (e.g., through transaction fees or buybacks)
- ❌ No issuance of new tokens or governance rights to private entities
- ✅ Systems must be immutable—resistant to arbitrary changes
- ✅ All financial flows must be publicly auditable
This model prioritizes long-term sustainability over short-term hype. By burning ETH, projects directly increase scarcity and align incentives with holders. By avoiding new tokens, ECF sidesteps speculation-driven bubbles and rent-seeking behavior.
Examples could include decentralized identity systems, privacy-preserving protocols, or tooling that improves node efficiency—all funded transparently and designed to last.
Political Absence: Why Ethereum Is Losing Influence
Cole also highlighted a critical blind spot: political engagement.
“I sat at the White House negotiating table alongside Solana, Bitcoin, and Cardano representatives. Where was Ethereum? Nowhere. The EF sent no one.”
He pointed out that while competitors are actively shaping regulatory discussions in Washington D.C., Ethereum’s leadership remains largely absent—preferring blog posts over policy advocacy.
This matters because major markets like the U.S. are drafting rules for stablecoins, taxation, and crypto custody. Without representation, Ethereum risks being regulated against its interests.
ECF plans to change that by engaging directly with policymakers—not to lobby for special treatment, but to defend open access, decentralization, and user sovereignty.
Empowering Validators: Introducing the Ethereum Validator Association (EVA)
To strengthen on-chain governance, ECF will launch the Ethereum Validator Association (EVA)—a body allowing validators to formally express preferences on key ecosystem decisions.
Validators stake ETH to secure the network. Under EVA, they could vote on:
- Priority of upcoming EIPs (Ethereum Improvement Proposals)
- Funding allocation for core client development
- Roadmap timelines and protocol upgrades
“You run a node? You should have a voice. This isn’t just governance—it’s influence rooted in skin in the game.”
EVA aims to shift power from centralized foundations to those who bear real economic risk—aligning decision-making with network security.
Reforming Developer Incentives: From Flat Pay to Performance-Based Funding
Another bold proposal targets how core developers are compensated.
Currently, teams like Geth, Prysm, and Teku receive funding from EF with little public accountability or performance metrics. Salaries are often equalized regardless of output.
Cole compared this to “a communist system—teams can delay delivery indefinitely but still collect paychecks.”
ECF proposes a merit-based model:
- Funding tied to verifiable milestones
- Public dashboards tracking progress
- Community-driven evaluation of impact
This could dramatically improve development velocity and ensure taxpayer-like contributions (via ETH burns or donations) yield measurable results.
This Isn’t a Fork—It’s a Course Correction
Cole emphasized that ECF is not attempting to split Ethereum or replace EF. Instead, it’s offering an alternative vision—one centered on economic alignment, transparency, and holder value.
“We don’t want division. We want evolution. If EF listens and adapts, we’ll gladly step back. But if not, we have a responsibility to act.”
ECF calls on developers, validators, and long-term ETH holders to join this movement—to build an Ethereum where innovation serves the network, not just insiders.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Is the Ethereum Community Foundation (ECF) replacing the Ethereum Foundation (EF)?
A: No. ECF is an independent initiative aiming to complement—and challenge—the EF by promoting transparency, economic alignment, and validator participation. It does not control Ethereum’s protocol.
Q: Will ECF create its own token?
A: No. One of ECF’s core principles is not issuing new tokens. All funding will support ETH-burning infrastructure only.
Q: How will ECF fund projects without issuing tokens?
A: Through donations, grants from aligned organizations, and potentially revenue-sharing models where projects burn a portion of their ETH income.
Q: What does ‘burning ETH’ do for the ecosystem?
A: Burning ETH reduces its circulating supply, increasing scarcity. Over time, this can support price appreciation and strengthen network security by raising the cost of attacks.
Q: Can individual users contribute to ECF’s goals?
A: Yes. By supporting ETH-burning dApps, participating in governance via staking, or advocating for transparent funding models, anyone can help advance ECF’s mission.
Q: Is a $1.2 trillion ETH market cap realistic?
A: At ~120 million ETH circulating supply, it would require ~$10,000 per ETH. Given growing institutional adoption (e.g., spot ETFs) and global demand for digital assets, many analysts view this as achievable in a bullish macro environment.