The Past, Present, and Future of Ethereum: Vitalik Interprets How Ethereum Became the World Ledger

Original Title: Ethereum's Next Decade | Vitalik Buterin

Hosts: Ryan, David, Bankless

Guest: Vitalik Buterin, Founder of Ethereum

Compiled by: LenaXin, ChainCatcher

ChainCatcher Editor's Summary

This article is compiled from an in-depth conversation between the Bankless podcast and Vitalik, the founder of Ethereum. He reviews the development trajectory of the past decade and looks forward to future directions, sharing lessons learned from The DAO incident to the NFT wave, and what different choices he would make if starting over. At the same time, it delves into Ethereum's evolving cultural identity, the positioning of privacy as a core value, the trade-offs between L1 and L2, and Vitalik's vision for Ethereum's continued development in an AI-dominated future.

Highlights:

• The vision for Ethereum's development over the next decade is a trustless secure computing future based on cryptography and code verification.
• The scale of Ethereum's development has far exceeded expectations, and the process has been longer than anticipated.
• ZK-SNARKs have disruptive power and can help us avoid many technical detours.
• Ethereum is essentially an inclusive and diverse ecosystem.
• Privacy is at the core of the cypherpunk ethos.
• Prematurely solidifying privacy protocols may lead to system rigidity.
• Solutions like Railway and Railgun can effectively prevent DeFi hackers from transferring stolen funds.
• The protocol layer is foundational.
• Although most users may still choose traditional solutions, we must prevent the absence of infrastructure or structural exclusion of protocol standards.
• The emerging MEME culture conflicts with Ethereum's core values.
• Capital efficiency is key.
• Economic coordination issues can be examined from the perspectives of fee mechanisms and network effects.
• The key to maintaining L1's core position is that even if most activities are on L2, asset issuance must still be anchored to L1.
• Over-optimizing a single metric inevitably sacrifices other dimensions.
• Moderate low latency should be borne by L1, while extreme performance is left to L2.

(1) Ethereum's Initial Vision

David: Does Ethereum's current development align with its initial vision?

Vitalik: The scale of development has far exceeded expectations. Of course, the entire process has also taken longer than anticipated. When I wrote the white paper in November 2013, I thought it was just a side project that could be completed in a few months, after which I could return to school, but that was not the case. We had planned to achieve proof of stake (PoS) in four phases, but just as the foundation ran out of funds, we thought the project would stagnate, but that concern did not come true.

Many ideas in the white paper have become a reality: derivative applications have indeed emerged, the ENS domain system has come into being, and stablecoins have successfully risen. At the same time, there have been many unexpected innovative breakthroughs: the flourishing of the DeFi ecosystem, the continuous evolution of various tokens, all of which have burst forth with unique vitality beyond the initial vision of the white paper.

(2) Ethereum's Core Contributions and Major Surprises

David: Which contributions of Ethereum to the world are you most proud of?

Vitalik: It has made openness and decentralization mainstream thinking, a concept that needs to be passed down through generations. Just like the free software movement in the 90s, blockchain is a continuation of the new era.

Ethereum has created new possibilities: turning prediction markets from theory into reality and reconstructing organizational governance models with DAOs. These innovations will continue to influence the coming decades.

In summary, the contributions are multifaceted.

Ryan: What major surprises have occurred during Ethereum's development? What were unexpected?

Vitalik: The DAO almost immediately collapsed after acquiring such a large amount of ETH. At one point, it accounted for as much as 11% of the total supply of Ethereum. Was it 11% of the total supply or 11 million ETH? If it was the latter, the proportion would reach 17%. In any case, the proportion was indeed astonishing at the time. In hindsight, the former was more surprising than the latter, but both were unexpected.

Ryan: What other surprises were there?

Vitalik: The ETC hard fork battle was certainly one. This technical contest was fascinating: just as the controversy over ETC was settling, the Shanghai dust attack followed, with timing as precise as a scripted play. The explosion of NFTs was completely unexpected for me, and the speed of DeFi's development was equally astonishing. Uniswap was almost unknown in 2019, yet it achieved explosive growth in just 18 months.

The trajectory of technological evolution has shown different paths: the implementation of proof of stake (PoS) took much longer than expected, while the progress of zero-knowledge proofs (ZK) was five times faster than anticipated.

The most surprising aspect was the early interest from institutions and governments. As early as the 2010s, many companies and multiple governments showed strong interest, although at that time it was more of a symbolic innovative stance. Now, this interest is returning to the ecosystem in a more pragmatic way.

Ryan: You mentioned that overall progress has been slower than expected in the white paper. Which specific aspects experienced delays? Was it the implementation of proof of stake (PoS) that took longer, or was the roadmap for Rollup technology hindered? What are the fundamental reasons for these delays?

Vitalik: Part of the reason is that the complexity of software development exceeded my experience at the time. Another part comes from our continuously raised standards; the initially planned version could only be considered a Layer 2 solution on PrimeCoin by today's standards.

The attention the project received in January 2014 made us realize that we had to deliver more serious results for this expectation, so we decided to build a true Layer 1. At that time, there was no suitable base chain for Layer 2.

Ultimately, the combination of technical complexity and self-imposed requirements led to delays.

(3) Ethereum's Methodology for Addressing Challenges

David: Based on the practices of the past decade, how do you define Ethereum's unique methodology for addressing unpredictable challenges?

Vitalik: The collaborative problem-solving model of the Ethereum ecosystem has proven effective: advancing multi-path innovation in both Layer 1 and application layers simultaneously, where competitive solutions often exist in various fields.

This parallel capability is remarkable, and synergies can arise between different paths (such as jointly promoting the maturity of ZK-SNARKs technology). Although not perfect, it demonstrates strong vitality overall.

(4) Advice to Young Vitalik

David: If you could travel back to the early days of Ethereum, which time point would you choose to impart key experiences to your younger self or the Ethereum Foundation? What specific guidance would you provide?

Vitalik: If I could go back to the beginning, I would fully disclose the existing ZK-SNARKs technology. This technology has disruptive power and can help us avoid many technical detours. Not being able to foresee the future is indeed one of the limitations of Ethereum's development. People often ask me what advice I would give my past self; besides technical solutions, perhaps I should also remind myself to maintain a more realistic attitude toward time expectations.

In terms of economic and social aspects, perhaps we could adopt different public goods supply mechanisms. For example, using a no pre-mining model, allowing miners to vote on the allocation of developer rewards based on the past 1024 blocks. This could not only achieve a funding allocation effect similar to the current situation but also establish stronger credibility in the early stages.

The early handling of relationships with Bitcoin is also worth rethinking. Ethereum could have potentially been part of the Bitcoin big block camp. If Ethereum had always existed as a Bitcoin blockchain, although forks might still have occurred, the entire process could have been more constructive. Of course, moving forward with an existing community also faces constraints from stakeholders, making it difficult to execute many plans, so it's hard to assert which choice is better.

(5) Bitcoin vs. Ethereum

Ryan: Do you think the relationship between Bitcoin and Ethereum has improved? The hostility between the new generation of Bitcoin and Ethereum supporters seems to have decreased? How would you describe the current relationship between the two?

Vitalik: It depends on the category of the so-called "new group." One group focuses on technical innovations like BitVM, Taproot, OpCat, etc., while another group is the "Sailorists," who have little hope of reaching consensus with Ethereum.

Wise technical observers increasingly recognize Ethereum's dual achievements: technological innovation and practical advancement of privacy protection. At the same time, the Bitcoin community's efforts on innovations like OpCat are also highly appreciated, where exciting technological breakthroughs are being nurtured.

Overall, the relationship between the two is developing positively.

(6) Ethereum's Positioning and Strategy

David: When you see developers expanding Bitcoin's programmability through technologies like BitVM, do you ever think, "Why not develop directly on Ethereum?" Or do you hold curiosity and optimism about their explorations?

Vitalik: Both.

David: Regardless of how social trends change, Ethereum remains consistent. Is this a deliberate design? Should Ethereum become a fortress against the tides of change?

Vitalik: Ethereum is essentially an inclusive and diverse ecosystem. In an environment where multiple cryptocurrency ecosystems coexist, different projects naturally form cultural differences. Each project should practice the values recognized by its community, promoting substantive progress rather than empty talk.

This year, I am focusing on two major directions: first, reforming the DAO public goods funding mechanism. The existing mechanism has flaws, and we are developing a V2 version based on prediction markets, combined with a jury mechanism, to build an "open access order."

Second, advancing privacy technology. Since eCash in 1982, privacy has been at the core of the cypherpunk ethos. Today, technologies like ZK-SNARKs have broken the dilemma of "centralization + privacy" or "decentralization + transparency." We are committed to innovations like standardizing privacy pools, allowing users to operate without relying on centralized services.

In terms of cultural positioning, Ethereum must build a technological fortress of freedom while resisting fraud and speculation. This requires the entire ecosystem to work together.

(7) Ethereum's Values and Mainstreaming of Traditional Finance

Ryan: How can we formulate a realistic privacy development roadmap that satisfies users while allowing state powers that uphold freedom to tolerate its development? Where is the feasible balance between technological breakthroughs and policy restrictions?

Vitalik: This question contains two key points: first, how to make privacy protection the default setting, and second, how to gain regulatory recognition.

I do not currently support implementing privacy features directly at the chain level (such as EIP 7503) not because of ideological issues, but because the current technology is not mature enough. Prematurely solidifying privacy protocols may lead to system rigidity, and privacy data is harder to upgrade than public data, making it impossible to simply replace or update.

David: Does this mean you believe that achieving privacy at the base layer of Ethereum is fundamentally the right direction?

Vitalik: I am open to privacy at the base layer, but we need to balance two key factors: future compatibility and security. L1 privacy vulnerabilities could lead to undetectable large-scale asset theft, but as technology advances (like AI-assisted development), code security will improve to levels unimaginable by traditional researchers.

Zcash has achieved on-chain privacy, but the threshold is high. My mid-term goal is to promote default privacy at the wallet level—current misconceptions treat privacy wallets as a separate category, whereas privacy should be a fundamental feature of all wallets. Through modular upgrades, existing wallets can fully integrate privacy features.

Ryan: What specific scenarios are you referring to?

Vitalik: Integrating "privacy balance" displays and "privacy send" buttons as standard feature modules in wallets like MetaMask, Rabby, or Ambire.

Ryan: Is this feasible under current technological conditions? If so, why hasn't it been implemented yet?

Vitalik: The Ethereum Foundation has already initiated relevant work to promote this direction. Substantial progress is expected in the coming months.

Ryan: How to gain support from state powers? Is there a balance that can address legitimate concerns from various countries about crime and money laundering while maintaining the core values of cypherpunks? Or are these two fundamentally irreconcilable?

Vitalik: Privacy pool technology has made significant progress, and solutions like Railway and Railgun can effectively prevent DeFi hackers from transferring stolen funds. These protocols demonstrate practical value through on-chain blacklist mechanisms, particularly suitable for addressing the two main types of illegal fund flows: DeFi vulnerabilities and personal theft.

Compared to imperfect fiat anti-crime mechanisms, the transparency of public chains becomes an advantage: fund flows are traceable, and abnormal transactions can be alerted. We can provide better privacy protection while maintaining fiat-level risk control.

At the same time, it is necessary to explain to regulatory agencies: excessive data collection poses systemic risks. Cases like data breaches from the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act show that once centralized databases leak, "national security data" can threaten national security. Privacy-protecting finance, as a solution that minimizes data collection, should become a focal point of policy discussions.

Ryan: You seem to imply a desire to uphold the privacy principles of cryptocurrency and Ethereum? When traditional financial forces enter what you call the "diverse Ethereum," how should the boundaries be drawn? When should we uphold cypherpunk values, and when should we compromise to adapt to market demands?

Vitalik: Upholding privacy and cypherpunk values requires focusing on two core aspects:

The protocol layer is foundational. Just as a centralized backend can only build centralized applications, if the base layer of the blockchain does not natively support privacy and intermediary-free access, the upper privacy ecosystem will struggle to develop. This is precisely why I continue to optimize account abstraction and EIP-7701, to avoid smart wallets, multi-signature schemes, etc., being forced to rely on intermediary services that have single points of failure. The core goal is to ensure that even if all servers a user connects to fail, funds can still flow freely.

Feasibility assurance is equally crucial. Strong privacy and intermediary-free usage models should at least exist as options, requiring collaborative support from the protocol layer, wallet layer, and application layer. Although most users may still choose traditional solutions, we must prevent the absence of infrastructure or structural exclusion of protocol standards.

The lessons from email are worth heeding; although it is theoretically an open protocol, its actual operation has become highly centralized due to the policies of major service providers. To avoid repeating this mistake, we have pre-set serverless implementation solutions when designing Ethereum standards (such as cross-Layer 2 protocols).

The path to realization lies in dual guarantees: on the technical level, dedicated personnel supervise standard-setting to ensure that privacy-friendly solutions are genuinely feasible; on the social level, forming a new standard must reach a consensus that is compatible with autonomous options. Even if most users continue to use custodial services like Coinbase, as long as autonomous options exist and receive basic support from the ecosystem, it is a significant advancement.

(8) The Mission of Ethereum

Ryan: In the face of an AI-dominated, geopolitically tense, and fragmented future, what role should Ethereum play? With technological innovations like gene editing also reshaping the future, what is Ethereum's mission?

Vitalik: I am glad we can reach a consensus on the recognition of risks associated with gene editing and AI, which contrasts with many people's views. Ethereum's future role can be understood from two dimensions:

From the product value perspective, Ethereum builds a neutral infrastructure that does not rely on any central entity, defending users' freedom and autonomy. In this increasingly fragmented world, this value is becoming more precious. Fifteen years ago, people trusted Facebook; today, they would only trust blockchain technology. The shift from the narrative that "privacy is dead" (like Facebook's real-name policy) to cloud service providers discussing TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) has witnessed the maturation of trust technology.

From the community-building perspective, Ethereum gathers innovators focused on decentralized finance, new governance models, and other cutting-edge fields. Even in extreme situations, the value of this community remains. The vision of a "world computer" has evolved into a more precise positioning of a "world ledger." It establishes the core value position of L1 while clarifying the collaborative relationship with L2.

David: If we view Ethereum as the world's ledger, what should ETH represent?

Vitalik: Now we need to consider: what corresponds to the "gas" of the ledger world? Perhaps it should be called "ink." Ink with the TM symbol counts as a Layer 2 solution, while that without the TM symbol is the basic fuel (gas). Is this analogy feasible?

(9) Ethereum in 2024

David: In 2024, due to the continued decline in the relative price of Ethereum's ETH, it has gone through a difficult period. Do you also think Ethereum has experienced a rocky 2024?

Vitalik: Of course.

David: How do you interpret this phenomenon? Can you elaborate on the development trajectory of Ethereum in 2024?

Vitalik: The core challenge Ethereum currently faces lies in the alternating fracture between old and new narratives. The low price of ETH is merely a surface issue; the deeper problem is that the original narratives (such as DAO governance and the NFT boom) are gradually losing their appeal, while the emerging MEME culture conflicts with Ethereum's core values.

The incentive imbalance between L1 and L2 further exacerbates this dilemma. The contradictions exposed by the implementation of EIP-4844 reflect the structural tension between the base layer and the expansion layer. This technical route dispute becomes particularly sharp during a down cycle in coin prices.

However, a turning point is emerging. In 2025, we will begin to see innovative solutions that can create economic value while aligning with the spirit of Ethereum. These new forces are reshaping market confidence and injecting new vitality into the ecosystem.

David: The current Ethereum community is still debating whether the predicament of 2024 stems from narrative psychological warfare or real technical issues. Has the Rollup-centered roadmap deviated from expectations?

Vitalik: These adjustments are indeed inevitable; the factors for change have long existed, just waiting for a trigger. Leadership changes are an example: Aya has transitioned to chair the board to focus on inclusive finance, after all, the executive director should not hold the position indefinitely (she has served longer than other EF members). The new technical leaders, Tom and Shelly, each have their strengths, with the new team leading expansion optimization and privacy initiatives, pushing PSE from theory to application. These changes were bound to happen, and special circumstances accelerated the process.

The Ethereum Foundation focuses on two directions: raising the L1 gas limit and promoting L2 interoperability. But the most urgent task is to shorten cross-chain withdrawal times from one week to 12 seconds; capital efficiency is key. Low withdrawal efficiency will lead native solutions to lose out to multi-signature bridging solutions.

Realization requires collaboration from multiple parties: EF development, L2 team optimization, and support from technologies like Succinct's ZK-EVM. Although it will take time, I am confident in the current path. Strengthening L1's core position, clarifying the relationship between L2 and L1, and building a more robust ecosystem.

(10) How to Correct Economic Coordination Bias

Ryan: The lack of economic coordination is a deep-seated crisis. Do you think we can correct this economic coordination bias? Is current progress still unsatisfactory?

Vitalik: Economic coordination issues can be examined from the perspectives of fee mechanisms and network effects. Currently, L2's fee contribution is insufficient; raising the minimum base fee or blob fee (like 1 gwei) can help, but network effects are key. This is precisely why I emphasize "1-hour withdrawal time"; if assets are all issued on L2 and circulate through bridging, L1 will be marginalized.

The key to maintaining L1's core position is that even if most activities are on L2, asset issuance must still be anchored to L1. This not only enhances the degree of trustlessness (avoiding reliance on L2 governance) but also brings three major advantages:

• A clearer security model: L1 as the ultimate arbiter
• Enhanced permissionlessness: applications can freely migrate across L2
• Technical compatibility: L1-L2 synchronized DeFi operations can natively support all assets

Specific measures should include:

• Raising the minimum blob fee to the 1 gwei level
• Optimizing standard deposit and withdrawal channels
• Developing synchronous composable block technology for L2 and L1

We must adhere to the core idea that the value of L2 stems from its interaction with L1 and its ability to offload responsibilities, rather than merely being an independent chain with cross-chain bridges.

Ryan: The new leadership of the Ethereum Foundation has listed L1 expansion as a priority, but does this constitute a strategic pivot? From your perspective, what is the core argument for promoting L1 expansion now?

Vitalik: The secure expansion of Ethereum's L1 must adhere to three bottom lines: ensuring stable network operation, maintaining node decentralization, and protecting the health of the staking ecosystem.** Today, we have mastered breakthrough technologies—ZK virtual machines are close to production readiness, capable of supporting a 3-5 times increase in gas limits while providing ZK verification solutions for affected small stakers; historical data optimization has reduced node storage by hundreds of GB, combined with distributed storage to ensure data verifiability; block access list technology has achieved full parallel verification of transactions, breaking through the serial bottleneck of execution and I/O.

These innovations are reshaping the paradigm of expansion: the security threshold for ZK verification nodes is controlled to below one-third, distributed networks safeguard data integrity, and parallel architectures enhance throughput efficiency. The technological evolution presents a clear path—currently in a Stage 1 phase similar to Rollup, moving towards Stage 2, which will be adopted by the majority of nodes in the network, ultimately achieving the optimization goal of a 36-day data cycle. The seemingly contradictory goals of expansion and decentralization can now be achieved in synergy through these deeply optimized new technologies.

Ryan: Can we achieve the annual expansion target of three times proposed by Donkrad while maintaining Ethereum's current level of decentralization? Do you think these goals are realistic?

Vitalik: Ethereum's expansion faces the challenge of balancing decentralization and performance. I am particularly concerned about the risks of extremely short block times; a 12-second block cycle combined with a 10,000 TPS solution would far exceed the current TPS level under a 1-second block, due to physical limitations like the speed of light communication. While I remain cautious about certain goals, there is still considerable room for optimization at the 45 million gas limit.

The node operation model is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Technologies like Helios support built-in verification in wallets, while privacy demands are driving the proliferation of self-hosted nodes, allowing users to avoid leaking query records to Infura when using privacy protocols.

We are adopting a dual-track technical strategy: full nodes will compress storage requirements to 80GB through data optimization, requiring only 2.4TB for a 30-fold expansion of L1; light clients will transition from TEE/ORAM to PIR solutions to achieve query privacy protection. These breakthroughs are expected to surpass the level of decentralization seen in 2017. Although we still need to be vigilant about the centralization risks of staking and block building, Ethereum is paving an innovative path that balances scalability, decentralization, privacy, and censorship resistance.

David: Why would participating in HFT destroy the soul of blockchain? What is the essential difference between Ethereum's current L1 expansion strategy and HFT models?

Vitalik: Over-optimizing a single metric inevitably sacrifices other dimensions. This is a universal law of optimization behavior. In the HFT field, the endless race for low latency reinforces centralization trends. Take a 1-second block as an example; each phase only allows a 500-millisecond delay, which requires extreme point-to-point optimization, while the zero-latency advantage brought by co-located nodes will fully stimulate centralization motives.

Ethereum's "barbell strategy" cleverly addresses this dilemma: L2 focuses on scenarios that require centralization (like HFT), relying on L1's security guarantees; L1 maintains its decentralized essence. I prefer independently ordered L2, as it can clearly delineate value boundaries. This architecture can also adapt to the future AI economy by accessing "city-level ledgers" through L2.

L1 needs improvement (like shortening block times), but must adhere to the bottom line: moderate low latency should be borne by L1, while extreme performance is left to L2. This layered collaboration is the wise choice to safeguard the soul of Ethereum.

(11) Ethereum Nationalism

**David: Should Ethereum also exhibit convexity in certain matters? My partner Ryan is trying to become a *"Ethereum Nationalist"*, promoting the uniqueness of Ethereum's core values. If you were to define this **"Ethereum Nationalism", what cultures and values should be emphasized?

Vitalik: This thought process is quite enlightening, extending from technical trade-offs to a more macro architectural philosophy. Ethereum's multi-layer structure (L1 and L2) creatively achieves goals that are difficult to reconcile in traditional cognition, much like modern political systems balance efficiency and constraints through institutional design. Its ingenuity lies in three core mechanisms:

• Verification system: L1's proof mechanism ensures L2 cannot act maliciously
• Escape route: L1 retains the ultimate authority to enforce transactions as a final safeguard
• Governance switch: On-chain voting resistant to censorship can replace problematic orderers

This design creates a unique innovation sandbox: L1 maintains a solid decentralized characteristic as the foundational layer while allowing L2 to explore different centralization/performance trade-offs in their respective tracks. Its essence is not to seek a "best single point," but to build a meta-system that accommodates diverse possibilities, which is precisely the most unique value of Ethereum.

**Ryan: What do you think of the recent emergence of **"ETH bond-type companies"? For example, Tom Lee proposed in the podcast to acquire 5% of the circulating ETH. Do you think these capital instruments are beneficial, harmful, or neutral to the ecosystem?

Vitalik: Regarding the value of ETH, I believe it is the largest economic consensus anchor of the entire Ethereum ecosystem. Maintaining ETH's core position is crucial. If the economic incentives of key organizations like Base, Bankless, and EF completely diverge, the Ethereum community will fall apart. The economic consensus core created by ETH is irreplaceable.

I have multiple theories about the source of ETH's value (sometimes I even feel that the joke theory that "ETH prices are controlled by 14 demons on Jupiter's moons" is hard to disprove), but in any case, making Ethereum the core ecosystem of global financial applications has always been the right direction. Whether through transaction fee capture or network effect theory, what we should do most is those things that can consolidate the value foundation of ETH from multiple dimensions.

As for these bond-type companies, they are indeed puzzling. They are essentially a leveraged financial product that lies between options and derivatives: investors inject capital, and the company centrally purchases ETH.

David: Which theory do you favor?

Vitalik: The "ETH bond institution" I admire the most? Probably the U.S. government, after all, they always confiscate ETH from hackers, and that operation is quite cool.

(12) Vision for Ethereum's Next Decade

Ryan: What are your expectations for Ethereum's development over the next decade? If the engineering is unfinished, what key milestones do you hope to achieve during this decade?

Vitalik: In the next decade, Ethereum's technological evolution will focus on three major directions: first, the comprehensive adoption of ZK-SNARKs/STARKs verification technology to optimize algorithm architecture and achieve lightweight node operation; second, making privacy protection a fundamental feature, extending from payments to complex scenarios like DeFi; finally, building a fully verifiable security system that encompasses the complete technology stack from applications to hardware.

In terms of social impact, Ethereum aims to reshape financial infrastructure: through permissionless interoperability and privacy protection features, allowing users to freely migrate assets, making the cryptographic trustless model the new norm. Just as HTTPS replaced HTTP, this transformation will render traditional trust models obsolete. Ethereum is becoming the core driving force of this trust revolution.

Ryan: In the next decade, how do you view your role in Ethereum? Will you persist in completing this vision? What does it mean for you personally?

Vitalik: Continuing to promote the development of Ethereum will remain my core mission for the next decade. In recent years, I have been deeply involved in broader DEAC (Decentralized Ecosystem Assurance) work. For example, the biological defense issues we discussed, as well as the construction of underlying protocol security, will continue to be my focus.

Essentially, my goal has always remained unchanged: to build an open, secure, and trustworthy fully decentralized world. This vision encompasses not only Ethereum but also a broader ecosystem. This has been my pursuit since I became involved in Bitcoin in 2011, and now, we are gradually turning it into reality.

Disclaimer

The content of this article does not represent the views of ChainCatcher. The opinions, data, and conclusions in the text represent the personal stance of the original author or interviewee. The compiler maintains a neutral position and does not endorse their accuracy. This does not constitute any professional advice or guidance, and readers should use it cautiously based on independent judgment. This compilation is for knowledge-sharing purposes only; readers should strictly adhere to the laws and regulations of their respective regions and refrain from participating in any illegal financial activities.