Crypto: Ethereum Is A "dictatorship" Controlled By Vitalik Buterin

Blockchain governance is a complex topic, where competing visions of decentralization are at play. While Ethereum presents itself as one of the most influential platforms in the crypto universe, Cardano’s founder, Charles Hoskinson, sees a different picture. According to him, Ethereum more closely resembles a “dictatorship” where Vitalik Buterin holds too much power. This bold critique raises profound questions about the true nature of decentralized governance and its application in the world of cryptos.

Ethereum: Decentralization or disguised centralization?

Charles Hoskinson’s accusation is direct: Vitalik Buterin has too much influence over Ethereum’s development, making it a sort of “dictatorship.”

For Hoskinson, true decentralization can only work if no individual becomes the central figure of such a vast network.

Yet, Ethereum has always promoted the idea of decentralization, where the community and stakeholders play a crucial role in decision-making.

Hoskinson compares this situation to a dilemma that the Bitcoin network managed to avoid. For him, Bitcoin chose a simpler path, with an immutable protocol and no self-proclaimed leader.

The community follows a rigid consensus, far removed from the rapid evolution of networks like Ethereum. According to Hoskinson, Bitcoin, though having its own challenges, has not succumbed to the temptation of relying on a centralized leader. Ethereum, on the other hand, seems to have taken the opposite direction, heavily relying on Buterin’s vision.

It is true that Vitalik Buterin has always been a leading figure in Ethereum’s development, but calling it a dictatorship? Ethereum’s supporters remind us that the blockchain utilizes a combination of off-chain and on-chain governance, with the Ethereum Foundation, the community, and major players playing a crucial role in key decisions.

But as Hoskinson points out, if Buterin were suddenly removed from the equation, what direction would Ethereum take? A question few are ready to answer.

Cardano: A Solution to the Governance Trilemma?

Cardano, Charles Hoskinson’s project, has often been presented as a more complete alternative to the governance issues faced by networks like Ethereum.

However, it is important to approach this claim with nuance. Hoskinson obviously has a personal interest in promoting Cardano, and, like any “mother protecting her baby,” he naturally defends his creation with fervor.

The central idea behind Cardano’s governance is to solve what Hoskinson calls the blockchain “trilemma”: finding a balance between efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity.

Cardano relies on a system of delegated representatives, elected by the community, for key decision-making.

An organization called Intersect ensures the transparency of this process, making sure power does not concentrate in the hands of a single individual. This may seem ideal on paper, but the implementation of these principles raises several questions.

In theory, this model aims to limit the risk of centralization. Hoskinson argues that, unlike Ethereum, Cardano does not rely on a central figure for its evolution. However, it is hard to deny that he remains, for now, a very influential voice within its ecosystem.

While he claims that his importance is fading over time, this transition is not yet complete. The future will tell if Cardano can truly operate without its creator’s supervision.

Moreover, it should be noted that Cardano’s transition to fully decentralized governance is still ongoing.

Hoskinson insists that, living or dead, the project will continue to progress thanks to its internal structures. Nevertheless, this statement should be taken with caution: achieving such complete decentralization is difficult in practice, and other blockchains that have attempted this approach have often faced unforeseen challenges.