Foreign media report that, after months of criticism over ETH sales, unstaking, and insufficient public communication, the Ethereum Foundation’s role has once again become a topic of discussion. Blockchain researcher William Mougayar argues that expecting the foundation to function as a marketing department for ETH fundamentally misaligns with its core responsibilities.
Recent treasury operations have continued to draw attention.
The controversy first arose from the foundation’s recent large-scale ETH disposals. Reports noted that the foundation recently sold a total of 25,000 ETH to BitMine through three over-the-counter transactions. The week prior, the foundation had sold 10,000 ETH, and earlier in March, it completed another over-the-counter transaction of 5,000 ETH at a price of $2,042.96 per ETH.
The foundation previously stated that the May sale would fund core operations and related activities, with proceeds primarily allocated to protocol research, ecosystem development, and community grants. While this explanation clarified the intended use of funds, it did not allay market concerns regarding the pace and scale of the sales.
The unbonding action has intensified market discussions.
In addition to selling ETH, the foundation recently conducted several unstaking operations. On April 26, the foundation unstaked 17,035.326 ETH, valued at approximately $40 million at the time. This occurred shortly after approaching its target of 70,000 ETH in staking.
On May 12, the foundation withdrew another 21,270 ETH from Lido. The on-chain data platform Arkham noted at the time that these funds entered the Ethereum withdrawal queue, awaiting completion of the unstaking process.
Supporters say the foundation's role is to maintain the protocol.
Mougayar posted on X that critics are using the wrong criteria for evaluation. He believes that the Ethereum Foundation's primary goal is not to support ETH's short-term price performance, but to strengthen the protocol itself and fund work that many commercial entities may not be willing to invest in.
According to this perspective, the foundation should allocate more resources toward long-term infrastructure development. The report notes that its funding has long been focused on areas such as zero-knowledge research, validator security, Ethereum clients, and public infrastructure.
Mougayar also opposes the foundation assuming the role of a marketing team. His core argument is that as the network matures, Ethereum’s primary supporting organization should become less centralized, rather than continuously managing market expectations around the token price.
Additional information: The current debate centers on two key points: some ETH holders are calling for the foundation to improve communication transparency and reduce large-scale treasury operations, while supporters argue that the foundation should prioritize safeguarding the protocol and ecosystem over responding to short-term market demands.