What happens when a longtime Ethereum insider calls the ecosystem a “religion” that has lost contact with reality? Looking at Soleimani’s thread critically – and that’s why it hit the nerve.
table of contents
Ethereum is called “again”
On April 17th, Ameen Soleimani posted a detailed thread on X. This has sharply criticized what is considered a separation of Ethereum (ETH) that is peeling away from actual concern.
Well, I’m drunk and bored and on a plane, so I’m going to tackle this in this respect. I’m doing this. Because, in my view, I am in the way of real progress, I am diminishing some of the religions of Ethereum that promotes up-song expression over reality.
Why do you think I made it a name… https://t.co/mu4hnvbdeb
– Amen Soleimani (@Mameensol) April 17th,
Soleimani’s comments were framed in response to a value-oriented post by Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake, which was supported and shared by co-founder Vitalik Buterin.
Soleimani challenged his posts to explain that Ethereum relies on abstract ideals and ambitious messages, claiming that these stories often obscure the real challenges facing networks.
He expressed concern that culture around Ethereum would be far too comfortable at the risk of being comfortable with ambiguous slogans at the expense of accountability and grounded problem-solving.
Soleimani is not used to Ethereum and does not speak from the bystanders. He is best known as the creator of Molofudao. This is a decentralized fundraising group launched in 2019 to support Ethereum infrastructure.
Molochdao also distributed grants for Ethereum 2.0 research, contributing to resource coordination during the transition to network proof.
His involvement in Ethereum dates back even further. He co-founded SpankChain, an adult content platform built on Ethereum that explores use cases of direct crypto payments and censorship resistance.
He also supported Rai, a decentralized, unenclosed stablecoin developed by Reablexer Labs, and participated in a public discussion on Tornado Cash, a privacy-centric protocol currently undergoing legal scrutiny in both the US and Europe.
Let’s look at the central arguments Soleimani laid out to assess how his concerns reflect deeper tensions in the Ethereum ecosystem.
Ethereum stub coin
One of the more pointed issues raised in Soleimani’s post is that Ethereum relies on centralized, ridiculous things.
Although Ethereum has established itself as a decentralized financial platform, much of its daily activities are still carried out through assets issued by private companies.
As of April 18th, stub coins such as Tether (USDT) and USD Coins (USDC) account for a significant portion of Ethereum’s liquidity and trading volume. According to Defilama, the total value of USDT and USDC, deployed across Ethereum, is over $100 billion.
These tokens serve as a settlement mechanism across the core collateral in the lending market, major trading pairs in decentralized exchanges, and a wide range of defi protocols. Their extensive integration makes them the basis for many applications built on Ethereum.
However, this level of dependency results in different trade-offs. Both USDT and USDC are issued by companies operating under national regulatory regimes. Tether is managed by Ifinex, USDC is issued by Circle and governed through the Center Consortium.
These issuers have the authority to maintain reserves set for Fiat, publish periodic proofs, and freeze or blacklist wallet addresses.
Although such forces are used sparingly, their presence introduces an unsettling form of counterparty risk in Ethereum’s broader decentralization narrative.
At the protocol level, Ethereum is still open, unauthorized and resistant to censorship. However, the most commonly used tools within the application layer rely on infrastructure that can be altered or restricted by intensive actors.
This distinction is important. It emphasizes that Ethereum decentralization is not evenly distributed across all strata, especially in the context of financial products that are susceptible to regulatory oversight and issuer management.
Political neutrality and policy involvement
Another concern in Soleimani’s post is the evolving relationship between Ethereum and the political system. Although the protocol is often referred to as apolitical and neutral, recent developments show that its wider ecosystem is increasingly interacting with legal frameworks and policy debates across jurisdictions.
This shift is not a change to Ethereum’s core design and is open without permission. However, there is a growing need for involvement with regulatory authorities, especially as networks support more capital, users and applications.
Ethereum-related infrastructure, including validator operators, custodians and development teams, frequently operate under national law and is subject to local compliance requirements.
Many of these entities are based on jurisdictions with active enforcement regimes. As of April 2025, Ethernodes data shows that over half of all active Ethereum nodes are hosted in countries such as the United States, Germany, and Singapore where cryptographic legal obligations are well established.
The geographical distribution of these nodes gives Ethereum’s global reach, but is also exposed to varying degrees of regulatory oversight.
Meanwhile, on the global front, Ethereum Foundation members are taking part in policy discussions with governments in Europe, Asia and Latin America.
Over the years, Vitalik Buterin has held meetings with civil servants in Montenegro and Argentine to explore a national approach to crypto governance.
These interactions remain informal, but suggest deliberate efforts to contribute to policy formation without necessarily leading protocols in a political direction.
Functionally, this engagement is not uncommon. As Ethereum becomes embedded in real finance and infrastructure, the need for legal clarity increases. Protocol developers, node operators, and wallet providers often require a stable regulatory environment to mitigate operational risks.
Meanwhile, policymakers are increasingly seeking technical input to inform new regulations. As a result, two-way exchange occurs. This is a policy shaped by protocol insights and protocol development influenced by regulatory contexts.
Ethereum remains decentralized in the basic layer and does not rely on state approval for its technology operations. Yet, individuals and entities built within that ecosystem often function within legal boundaries.
The result is conditional independence rather than complete exfoliation. This is a conservation of neutrality at the protocol level despite continued involvement with the political system.
When “unauthorized innovation” meets the law
Soleimani’s thread aims to embrace “unauthorized innovation” in the Ethereum community.
This concept drives much of Ethereum’s early growth, but Soleimani argues that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the outcome.
One of the most prominent examples he cites is Tornado Cash, a privacy protocol launched via Ethereum’s autonomous smart contracts.
In 2022, the US Treasury Department’s Foreign Assets Bureau approved the protocol, claiming it promoted money laundering of criminal actors, including the North Korean Lazarus Group.
He was arrested after sanctions. Roman Storm and Alexey Pertsev are two developers of Tornado Cash and were taken into custody in the US and the Netherlands.
Storm is currently facing charges related to money laundering, violations of international sanctions and operating unlicensed money services businesses.
For Soleimani, the question is not just the legal action itself, but how the Ethereum community responded. Some defended the developers, while others relied on the argument that “code is a speech,” and therefore beyond the legal system.
Soleimani sees this assumption as misguided. In his view, relying on code neutrality to protect developers from liability ignores how financial technology is actually regulated.
He is particularly critical of the belief that developers do not need legal assistance. In his post, he points to the legal team and advocacy groups who submitted Amicus briefs in the defense of the Roman storm.
These briefs argue that the writing and deployment of open source code should be protected under free speech, and that the creators of decentralized tools should not be held responsible for misuse by third parties.
These positions have gained support in some parts of the crypto industry, but remain legally uncertain.
This case has a wide range of implications for the development model of Ethereum. The right to build remains intact at the technical level, but the legal risks associated with privacy tools and cross-border transactions are increasing.
In Soleimani’s view, defending unauthorized innovation requires more than idealism. It calls for legal visionary, active engagement and a deeper understanding of the risks associated with buildings in a regulated world.
Do ETH require a price?
Soleimani also raises concerns about Ethereum’s reliance on ETH prices to maintain network security. In his post he revisited his previous differences with Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake.
Soleimani was pushed back by asking a direct question: how will Ethereum continue to secure its network if ETH loses its value?
This is a fundamental problem within Ethereum’s current architecture. Ethereum has stopped using miners since the transition to proven networks in 2022. Instead, it relies on validators who bet ETH to validate transactions and keep the system working.
The effectiveness of this model depends both on the amount of ETH and the market value of the token itself.
If the price of ETH drops too much, the reward for honest verification will decrease, making it unattractive for participants to bet.
At the same time, the cost of attacking the network is reduced. This dynamic undermines both the incentives to protect the network and the deterrent against malicious activities.
As of April 18, ETH was trading around $1,570, reflecting a decline of over 52% from its recent high. According to data from BeaConcha.in, more than 34 million ETH are currently being staked, accounting for around 28% of the total supply.
Soleimani’s argument is that the proof system does not separate monetary value from security. ETH prices are more than just market indicators. This is a central part of how resilient your network is.
Can Ethereum settle and move forward?
Soleimani closes his post with questions beyond a single disagreement. Can Ethereum, as a system and community, recognize the contradictions within it, and still find a way to move forward?
Despite his strong criticism, he does not amortize the network. Instead, he looks back at past moments when changes took place. For example, early debates about the importance of ETH prices ultimately led to the emergence of the “ultrasound money” narrative. He considers this as evidence that the community can adapt when it makes its choice.
His hope is that similar changes could happen again. The challenges facing Ethereum today are essentially different. They involve questions about legal risks, adjustment issues, and how power is distributed. These are not just technical issues. They need a broader perspective on how that protocol fits into the world around it.
Whether Ethereum is able to harmonize these tensions depends on how it responds to them. That includes being realistic about the risks that developers face, the tools they rely on, and the systems they interact with. It also means accepting that decentralization involves trade-offs that need to be managed rather than ignored.
