Starting with what is PoS: Why does Ethereum adhere to its values rather than blindly chase speed?

In this “performance first” Web3 era, a series of choices made by Ethereum often seem somewhat “out of sync.” While high-performance public chains like Solana and Sui continue to break TPS records, Ethereum keeps revisiting technical routes such as PoS mechanisms, Rollup architectures, and interoperability, which appear to be roundabout. This contradiction raises a core question: What kind of system does Ethereum ultimately want to become?

In fact, many criticisms of Ethereum do not stem from technical disagreements but from misunderstandings of its “value premises.” Understanding this is key to truly grasping why Ethereum has maintained a clear goal orientation throughout its ten years of operation.

A Decade of Commitment Under the PoS Mechanism: Why Ethereum Has Never Pursued the Fastest

Recently, there have been some “anxious” voices within the Ethereum community. From reflections on the Rollup path, debates over the “Ethereum alignment” concept, to horizontal comparisons with other high-performance chains, a persistent concern is spreading—Is Ethereum “degenerating”?

To answer this question, one cannot just look at recent one or two years of technological development but must review what Ethereum has truly been committed to over the past decade.

Many emerging public chains have chosen a “more direct” path: reducing the number of nodes, raising hardware thresholds, centralizing ordering and execution rights to achieve extreme performance. This approach is indeed fast, but at what cost?

In contrast, since launching the PoS mechanism (Ethereum 2.0) in 2020, Ethereum has consistently adhered to a seemingly conservative yet forward-looking choice—the willingness to sacrifice short-term speed to ensure system trustworthiness even in the worst-case scenarios.

A key data point often overlooked is: In nearly ten years of operation, Ethereum has never experienced a network-wide shutdown or rollback event, maintaining uninterrupted 24/7/365 operation. This is not “good luck,” but a direct result of its design philosophy.

What is PoS? Simply put, it is a consensus mechanism that uses the economic incentives of staking crypto assets, rather than traditional PoW’s computational race, to validate blocks and protect the network. But for Ethereum, PoS is more than just a technical system; it embodies a set of values—allowing ordinary people to participate in validation, while ensuring honest behavior through economic game theory.

Beyond Technical Choices: Ethereum’s Alignment and Boundaries

The first step in understanding Ethereum is accepting a somewhat unappealing but extremely critical fact: Ethereum is not a system solely aimed at “maximizing efficiency.” Its core goal is not to run the fastest but to remain trustworthy “in the worst-case scenarios.”

In other words, within the Ethereum context, many seemingly technical issues are fundamentally value choices:

• Should we sacrifice decentralization for speed?
• Should we introduce powerful permissioned nodes for higher throughput?
• Should we entrust security assumptions to a few for better user experience?

The Ethereum community’s answer is often no. Because of this, there is an almost instinctive caution towards “shortcuts,” where “can we do it” always takes a backseat to “should we do it.”

It is in this context that “Alignment” has become the most controversial concept recently. Some worry it could become a tool for moral coercion or even a means for rent-seeking power.

Vitalik Buterin, in his September 2024 article “Making Ethereum alignment legible,” explicitly points out this risk: “If alignment means whether you have the right friends, then the very concept has already failed.”

His proposed solution is not to abandon alignment but to make it explainable, decomposable, and discussable. In his view, alignment should be broken down into three scrutinizable attributes:

• Technical Alignment: Does it use Ethereum’s security consensus? Does it uphold open-source and open standards?
• Economic Alignment: Does it promote long-term ETH value capture rather than unilateral extraction?
• Moral/Ideological Alignment: Does it pursue public interest rather than predatory growth?

From this perspective, alignment is not a loyalty test but a social contract of mutual benefit and symbiosis. The Ethereum ecosystem allows chaos, competition, and even fierce intra-layer 2 competition; but ultimately, these activities should feed back into the core that provides security, consensus, and settlement.

Decentralization and Censorship Resistance: The Mission of PoS Validators

If “alignment” defines the boundary of values, then what truly sustains this boundary are Ethereum’s two long-standing pillars: decentralization and censorship resistance.

First, in the Ethereum context, “decentralization” does not mean more nodes are always better, nor does it mean everyone must run a node. Its true meaning is: the system can operate normally without trusting any single participant.

What does this imply? The protocol should not rely on any single sequencer, coordinator, or company; at the same time, node operation costs should not be so high that only professional institutions can participate, ensuring ordinary people can still verify that the system is functioning according to rules.

Because of this, Ethereum maintains long-term restraint on hardware thresholds, bandwidth requirements, and state bloat—even if this slows down some short-term performance metrics. In Ethereum’s view, a system that is extremely fast but cannot be verified by ordinary users has fundamentally lost the meaning of “permissionless.”

Another often misunderstood value is censorship resistance. Ethereum does not assume the world is friendly. On the contrary, from its inception, it presumes participants may seek profit, power may concentrate, and external pressures will inevitably arise. Therefore, censorship resistance does not mean “no one will ever censor,” but rather that even if someone attempts to censor, the system will not fail because of it.

This is why Ethereum places great importance on mechanisms like Proposer/Builder separation, decentralized construction, and economic game design—not because they are elegant, but because they ensure continued operation under the worst conditions.

In many discussions, some question: “Do such extreme scenarios really happen in reality?”

But the key issue is: if a system is only safe in an ideal world, then it is not trustworthy in the real world.

Data Speaks: 1.57 Million ETH Voting

The final set of data vividly illustrates this point. Currently, the queue for exiting staked ETH on Ethereum’s PoS is nearly empty, while the queue for entering staking continues to grow, with total staked ETH exceeding 1.57 million.

What does this mean? Despite various controversies and doubts, a large amount of ETH continues to be locked into this system long-term. Holders are “voting” in the most direct way—not with words, but with real money.

This may speak louder than any declaration. It shows that even if Ethereum’s development seems “slow” and some question its route, the ecosystem participants’ confidence in its core values remains firm.

Final Words

Many critics say Ethereum is always “discussing philosophy after others have already started.” But from another perspective, it is precisely these discussions that have helped Ethereum avoid repeated rebuilds from scratch.

Whether it’s the Rollup-centric roadmap, the gradual introduction of ZK, or progress in interoperability, fast finality, and slot shortening, all are based on a fundamental premise: All performance improvements must be compatible with existing security and value assumptions.

This explains why Ethereum’s evolution often appears “conservative yet steady.” Ultimately, it is not about rejecting efficiency but refusing to trade current systemic risks for short-term gains.

And this is the underlying spirit that has supported Ethereum’s ecosystem through ten years and will continue to guide its future—also the most scarce and valuable aspect to protect in an era dominated by “efficiency/TVL first.” It is this steadfast commitment to PoS, decentralization, and censorship resistance that makes Ethereum’s moat the broadest and most resilient in the industry.