Does "On-Chain Ethics" Exist? Vitalik's Idealism and the Conflict of L1 Free Economy

Source: Unchained
Translated by: WuShuoBlockchain

This edition of "The Chopping Block" focuses on Vitalik's public criticism of projects such as Pump.fun on Farcaster, sparking controversy within the Ethereum community and causing value conflicts and public opinion turmoil in external ecosystems such as Solana and Base. Four guests — Haseeb (Dragonfly Managing Partner), Tom (DeFi Expert), Robert (Superstate Founder), Tarun (Gauntlet Founder and CEO) — debated "Product-Market Fit (PMF) vs. Ethical Judgment," discussing whether Vitalik has the right to pass "moral judgments" on Web3 applications and how the community understands the tension between a founder's role and industry thought leadership. In criticism and resonance, the show also redefined Vitalik's unique position in the crypto industry: ideals are not swayed by the wind, and his stance does not cater to others.

Vitalik's Post Criticizing the Ethical Debate Sparked by Pump.fun

Haseeb: Let's talk about what has recently happened in the Ethereum community. Once again, the Ethereum community has been embroiled in controversy. During this time, the Ethereum Foundation has experienced many personnel changes.

The cause of this event was a post from Vitalik on Farcaster (also known as a "Cast" published on the Farcaster platform). In this cast, Vitalik criticized some L1 blockchains for lacking an ethical stance, that is, "lacking a philosophical foundation." They are not clear on why they are building an L1 chain, do not have a clear vision to guide which applications they should build, and what role they hope the blockchain will play in the world.

He gave an example, saying: Imagine if C++ were a programming language designed by an authoritarian, racist, fascist. Would it become worse as a result? Probably not, because C++ is a general-purpose language that is not easily polluted by ideology. However, Ethereum L1 is different. If you don't believe in decentralization at all, then you won't be promoting light clients, data availability layers, account abstraction, or spending ten years advancing the PoS transition.

He then points out that 80% of the applications on Ethereum are special purpose, and what applications you build largely depends on what role you think Ethereum should play in the world. So, having the right vision in this regard is very important.

Haseeb: He then provided examples of what he considers "good" and "bad" — the good being Railgun, Farcaster, Polymarket, and Signald; the bad being Pump.fun, Terra, and FTX. This segment sparked intense controversy within the Ethereum community and the "non-Ethereum camp." People began to question: Is Vitalik now setting "moral standards" for the entire industry? Tarun, what are your thoughts?

Tarun: First, I want to point out that this controversy is not solely an "Ethereum vs. non-Ethereum" standoff. More accurately, it's three camps speaking out: Ethereum, Solana, and Base. Surprisingly, Base and Solana found themselves on the same side in this matter, opposing Vitalik's labeling of Pump.fun as "negative."

For example, Jesse Pollak (a key figure in Base) believes that Pump.fun is essentially a prediction market that combines internet content with the attention economy, a gameplay widely accepted in their ecosystem. Products like Zora follow the same logic.

In the Solana community, a more prevailing value is "liberalism": Play as you wish, even if it's a casino game, as long as you are willing to take risks, it's your choice. In the Ethereum community, there is usually more emphasis on the application's "ethical positioning" — such as building privacy tools (like Railgun) or decentralized prediction markets (like Polymarket).

Haseeb: The good examples Vitalik mentioned are Polymarket and Farcaster, right?

Tarun: Yes. But what I particularly want to mention is Railgun, which Vitalik referenced. Upon checking on-chain data, the user base is actually very small. I can't help but ask, why can an application like this be considered an "ethical benchmark"? Could this evaluation standard be biased?

Tom: Railgun has few users, there may also be some "external reasons."

Value Conflict Between Ethereum and Solana Communities on "Acceptable Apps"

Tarun: Indeed, there are external factors behind this, but I want to point out that the current situation is somewhat like a "divine decree" — what Vitalik says seems like a proclamation of the right path. The issue is, this time even Layer 2 app developers and DeFi practitioners within the Ethereum ecosystem are openly criticizing him, indicating that his words are actually unwelcome even within Ethereum.

I believe that many Ethereum application developers also acknowledge that Pump.fun may have a certain level of "exploitative" nature, but at the same time, it has indeed brought about a new interactive pattern that people just want to use. There is actually a deep divide within Ethereum — some people believe that if an application could bring negative externalities to L1, then it should be dismissed. However, in the Solana world, this viewpoint is not valid at all, and people are more inclined to "let the market choose."

Haseeb: Do you think he would use the same standard to judge Satoshi Dice back in the day?

Tarun: Good question. Satoshi Dice was an early Bitcoin gambling application where users could directly gamble with BTC. I think Vitalik's perspective has changed. Based on my observation of him over the past decade, I think he may not have been as negative about these things in the past, but his stance has clearly become stricter now.

However, I think the most interesting point this time is that many developers in the Ethereum ecosystem who would never openly criticize Vitalik have collectively spoken out against this, indicating that this "moral critique" line has indeed struck a chord with many people.

Haseeb: Tom, what are your thoughts?

Tom: My opinion is that Vitalik has never been good at "picking apps." The apps he likes usually aren't very user-friendly. Although I understand his support for Polymarket's position, he also liked Augur before. I think fundamentally, he is obsessed with prediction markets rather than having judgment on specific products.

For me, this feels a bit like a "who cares" situation. Even if Vitalik has long publicly expressed this view, it will not change the technical roadmap of Ethereum or Solana. Solana was not designed to support Pump.fun, and Ethereum was not born to stop it. These things are more like the result of "ecosystem evolution" rather than products driven by subjective designers.

Different chains have different atmospheres fundamentally because people with different values are attracted to different ecosystems, rather than due to differences in underlying functionality. In the end, this is more of a cultural clustering effect rather than a result of technological features.

Is Vitalik Qualified to Pass "Ethical Judgments" on On-chain Applications?

Haseeb: Anatoly (Co-founder of Solana) responded to this controversy by saying, "When you don't have Product-Market Fit (PMF), you start playing politics." This was his comment on the whole event.

Tarun: However, I think the reverse is also true: sometimes, when you have too strong of a Product-Market Fit, you also see "politics." You can look at Bridgewater Associates, Facebook, and those extremely successful places, all eventually inevitably move towards infighting, policy-making, and power struggles. So I think Anatoly's statement sounds a bit one-sided. In reality, both situations can lead to "politicization."

Tom: I also find this quite ironic. Solana initially shouted, "Let's put NASDAQ on the chain," but now it has become "You are the chain of meme coins." Then the community started saying, "Your current positioning is to create meme coins, so don't change, ever, until you die." If you are not willing to play this role anymore, others will say you are no longer relevant. This reminds me of the robot in "Rick and Morty" that was born just to pass the butter - "This is your purpose."

Haseeb: Robert, what's your take on this?

Robert: As an app developer, I really don't care about the "philosophy" of Ethereum, Solana, Arbitrum, or any chain for that matter. I care about: What can I do on this chain? What DeFi apps are available? What is the throughput like? Are transaction costs high? Is the ecosystem well integrated?

As for moral judgment, it's completely irrelevant to me, and I don't really care what Vitalik said. I think the issue itself is not that relevant, it's even safe to say it's irrelevant.

Haseeb: So you think everyone's "overreaction" to Vitalik's remarks is actually a kind of performance?

Robert: To some extent, yes. Especially for those who are not building projects, they don't have much real work to do, so they can only create discussions around these controversial topics. We've seen this kind of situation before, and it's no surprise.

Haseeb: Indeed, those who are truly dedicated to entrepreneurship have many more things to worry about. Vitalik made a slightly controversial post about Farcaster, which is hardly a big deal. If you let yourself be troubled by such trivial matters every day, it means you have many more important things to attend to.

Evaluation and Understanding of Vitalik's "Fidelity to Ideals, Not Market Appeal"

Haseeb: Personally, I have a great deal of respect for Vitalik's consistency. This is not a recent change in his stance; he has always been a "missionary" figure. From the inception of Ethereum, it has been an ideologically driven project for him, and it remains so to this day.

Many people are disappointed in him because they hoped he would transform into a more "entrepreneurial" or "political" figure. But Vitalik did not follow a trajectory like Obama, evolving from a Chicago community organizer to a Democratic Party leader and eventually the President of the United States. Many would say, "Look, he's completely different from what he used to be." Vitalik, on the contrary, has never become the "President of Ethereum," never abandoned his early beliefs because of the project's success. He has not deleted his early blog posts, morphed into Ethereum's cheerleader-in-chief, or filled his mind with thoughts solely on how to make the price rise.

Many other individuals in the Ethereum ecosystem did change after the project's success, but Vitalik did not. I respect his consistency. What he would have said five years ago, he says now, and he may still say the same in five years. He insists that Ethereum should serve a specific idea, rather than being "anything that can make money."

I see this as similar to a country's president saying, "I believe that casinos have a negative impact on society, and we should reduce their number." You might argue that lotteries and casinos bring in significant revenue for the government. But he would say, "I understand, but I still believe it's not good." He has the right to think this way and express it. I respect that.

Haseeb: In conclusion, I understand why some people are dissatisfied with Vitalik's statements, but I believe that this largely stems from a "misunderstanding." They see Vitalik as Ethereum's CEO rather than an idea-centric thinker.

In my view, he is more like the Geoffrey Hinton of the crypto industry (the "Godfather" of artificial intelligence). He is the source of ideas, but you don't have to treat his words as law, nor do you need his endorsement.

When you look at the projects publicly endorsed by Vitalik, many have not achieved significant success. Just because he said it doesn't mean he can determine the market direction. Vitalik is Vitalik; he can say whatever he wants, and I will always respect him—but that doesn't mean I have to hand over my product direction to him, and it doesn't mean you should either.

Tom: I really liked Bingie's tweet response, where he said: "I'm sure Tim Berners-Lee (the father of the World Wide Web) is not a big fan of Pornhub. It's okay, Vitalik doesn't like Pump.fun either, and that's okay."

Haseeb: Yes, that perfectly sums it up. Vitalik is the "elder" of the crypto industry. He doesn't need to like your project, and just because he doesn't like it doesn't mean you can't survive.

Original Tweet