Your Gateway to the Latest in Cryptocurrency

Cardano Founder Refers to Bitcoin as ‘Anarchy’ and Ethereum as ‘Dictatorship’

Cardano Founder Refers to Bitcoin as ‘Anarchy’ and Ethereum as ‘Dictatorship’

The creator of Cardano (ADA), Charles Hoskinson, took a hard stance against Ethereum (ETH) in a recent interview, likening its governance structure to a “dictatorship.”

He believes that the well-known co-founder of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin, has too much influence for what is, ironically, meant to be a decentralized network.

He asserted that Cardano successfully navigates this path thanks to its Voltaire-era governing mechanism. By empowering the community to take the lead in decision-making, this update keeps power from being concentrated in the hands of one individual.

Speaking with Cointelegraph at Token2049 in Singapore, the American entrepreneur claims that Cardano’s strategy also avoids the “anarchy” he perceives in Bitcoin (BTC) by providing a reasonable middle ground between the two extremes.

“If you have those three things, then you have a fair shot of avoiding the anarchy of Bitcoin or the dictatorship of Ethereum, and you actually have something that can move forward with one voice, but it’s still decentralized at the end of the day because it represents everybody,” he said.

Hoskinson Boils Down on Comment

Charles Hoskinson did not back down from his controversial comment comparing Ethereum to a dictatorship while throwing more light on it. He underlined that Vitalik Buterin is fundamentally at the center of Ethereum’s overall vision.

He continued, “Everyone looks to him for the roadmap, for inspiration, and he’s the only person with enough influence to rally the community,” Hoskinson said, pointing out the reliance on Buterin. Without him, he questioned whether Ethereum could maintain its momentum: “If you removed him from the picture, what would the next hard fork look like? How quickly could they get there?”

He didn’t limit his criticism of Ethereum’s leadership to that. Additionally, he directly blamed Buterin for Ethereum’s strategic change. Ethereum was initially intended to grow by optimizing its core through sharding, but Buterin directed the ship in the direction of rollups and layer-2 solutions. Although this strategy has helped Ethereum grow in the near run, not everyone has approved of it.

The emergence of “extractive L2s” has drawn criticism recently since Ethereum’s base layer has experienced a decline in both activity and fee income.

“Where did the move to embrace layer 2s or rollups come from?” Hoskinson asked. “Was it the brainchild of some random Ethereum engineer, or was it Buterin driving the narrative, writing blog posts, talking about it, and pushing for it?”  he asked.

According to Hoskinson, this supports the idea that a single individual’s vision, rather than a decentralized community, has too much influence on Ethereum’s future.

Final Thoughts

Charles Hoskinson’s critique of Ethereum’s governance structure raises important questions about the balance between decentralization and leadership in the world of blockchain. By likening Ethereum’s structure to a “dictatorship,” Hoskinson argues that Vitalik Buterin holds too much influence over the platform’s direction, contradicting the decentralized ethos Ethereum is supposed to champion.

He contrasts this with Cardano’s governance model, which he claims empowers the community through its Voltaire-era mechanisms, allowing decisions to be more distributed and democratic. This critique reflects a broader concern about whether influential figures like Buterin, despite their positive contributions, inadvertently centralize control in supposedly decentralized networks.

However, Hoskinson’s stance is not without its complexities. While he points out the dangers of over-reliance on a single leader, it’s arguable that strong vision and leadership have helped Ethereum grow and adapt, especially through strategic shifts like the focus on rollups and layer-2 solutions. This evolution has enabled Ethereum to handle scaling issues and maintain its dominance in the smart contract space, even if some disapprove of the methods.

Hoskinson’s critique highlights the trade-offs between innovation and decentralization, as well as the challenge of maintaining balance in leadership without sacrificing the community’s voice. Both Cardano and Ethereum have adopted different approaches, and the success of each will ultimately depend on how well they manage these tensions in the long run.