This Ethereum Foundation move is really a case of, “when you shouldn’t be showing up, you insist on showing up.”

You say Ethereum is in a sensitive period, with hacker incidents not fully digested yet, market confidence being repaired, and everyone trying to figure out how to steady the situation. And then what? As the “invisible major shareholder” in the ecosystem, the Foundation not only didn’t step in to carry the burden—it actually went the other way and cashed out a chunk of money. How is that any different from adding insult to injury?

Let me give an inappropriate analogy: when a company is in big trouble, the suppliers, employees, and customers are all clenching their teeth and holding on. Then the chairman suddenly says, “Oh, I just reduced my holdings a bit—there are some expenses at home.” Is it legal? Of course it is. Is it dignified? Judge for yourself.

Think back to the DAO incident in 2016—back then, the Foundation was not like this. They had the courage to decide, the courage to hard fork, the courage to stand up and take the blame. But now, the Foundation is increasingly giving off the feeling of “putting on airs,” only wanting to enjoy the halo brought by Ethereum’s orthodox legitimacy, but unwilling to take on the responsibility that an ecosystem leader should take on.

Look at other projects too: Uniswap’s transparent ledger, Solana and Arbitrum’s speed of response during crises, Optimism’s innovations in governance—what one of them doesn’t put EF miles behind?

From goodwill to a negative score, sometimes you only need one ill-timed move. It’s not that no one is allowed to sell tokens—what matters is “when to sell and how to sell.” With this Foundation move, beyond getting themselves dragged through the mud, there really isn’t any other value $ETH
​