Author: Macauley Peterson, Blockworks; Compiled by: Deng Tong, Golden Finance

The Ethereum community is at a cultural crossroads, and the violent reaction to the departure of top contributor Max Resnick sheds light on the issues surrounding governance and Deeper Tensions of Dissent. Resnick’s criticism of Ethereum’s approach to governance and scalability prompted an overwhelmingly negative response, including accusations of being a “Solana factory” and other personal attacks. These responses highlight broader issues with Ethereum’s social layer and decision-making process.

Ethereum extremism has begun to reflect some of the less constructive characteristics of Bitcoin extremism. Debates abound about dissent being increasingly silenced, with critics labeled outsiders or opponents. Resnick's criticism, while highlighting real challenges, was also met with hostility. His communication style was often considered hostile and alienated key contributors. Some in the community saw his departure as a positive, reinforcing shared values ​​and emphasizing that dissent must be constructive to avoid division.

This is not unique to Resnick. Jon Charbonneau and others have also challenged the idea of ​​decentralization as an abstract ideal, arguing that it stifles productive debate in practice. Charbonneau wrote in his "Ethereum's North Star" blog post: "If decentralization is the only goal, then why not lower the block gas limit, lower the blob count, and increase the slot time? Many times, shouting 'Aha, that's the sacrifice of decentralization!' just serves to end a productive debate."

Charbonneau stressed that Ethereum needs to define its unique purpose. He urged the community to follow long-term principles and avoid decisions driven by short-term dynamics.

Ethereum’s reliance on social consensus has long been hailed as a decentralized alternative to formal governance. However, this approach has drawbacks. Even though Ethereum’s core development process operates transparently and engages diverse stakeholders, decisions often seem to be dominated by loud, influential voices on platforms like Twitter.

Core developers follow a consensus-driven process, built openly to ensure decisions reflect a broad range of opinions. This process resists formal capture but risks stalling if dissenting voices are excluded. Resnick regularly contributes to Eth Research, sharing insights on scalability and governance, but he does not participate in ACD calls or participate heavily in events.

Bitcoin’s rise, including its run to $100,000, is not just driven by extremism. It stems from ongoing advocacy efforts to engage , institutions and the public in building strong socialeconomic narrative. In contrast, Ethereum has largely avoided real-world advocacy, focusing instead on maintaining its decentralized ethos.

The future of Ethereum depends on a balance of belief and inclusivity. Communities must realize that technological advancement alone is not enough – a strong cultural foundation is equally important. Purity tests and unchecked extremism can stifle innovation and debate, so mechanisms that promote open dialogue without compromising decentralization must be introduced.

Ethereum’s biggest advantage is its adaptability. By addressing cultural challenges head-on, communities can retain valuable contributors and ensure Ethereum’s leadership as a decentralized, inclusive ecosystem.