Ethereum In Revolt: Polygon’s Nailwal Turns On The Foundation

bitcoinistPublished on 2025-10-21Last updated on 2025-10-21

Abstract

Polygon Foundation CEO Sandeep Nailwal has publicly questioned his “loyalty toward Ethereum,” igniting a rare, unvarnished bout of soul-searching across...

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

Polygon Foundation CEO Sandeep Nailwal has publicly questioned his “loyalty toward Ethereum,” igniting a rare, unvarnished bout of soul-searching across the ecosystem that drew immediate responses from core contributors, investors, and ultimately Vitalik Buterin himself. The exchange, which unfolded on X over the past 10 hours, centers on whether the Ethereum Foundation (EF) adequately supports its builders, how Layer-2 projects are recognized within Ethereum’s narrative and market “beta,” and whether the community’s culture has drifted from its original ideals.

Is The Ethereum Foundation A ‘Shitshow’?

“Read this from Peter and realized that it’s time for me to also speak up,” Nailwal wrote, referencing core developer Péter Szilágyi’s decision on October 19 to publish a letter he says he sent to EF leadership roughly 18 months ago. Nailwal, who credits Ethereum and Buterin as his entry point and inspiration, said his long-standing moral loyalty to Ethereum has come at personal and corporate cost: “Though I/we never got any direct support from the EF or the Ethereum CT community — in fact, the reverse. But I have always felt moral loyalty towards Ethereum even if [it] costs me billions of dollars in Polygon’s valuation perhaps.”

Nailwal’s critique is both cultural and financial. “The Ethereum community as a whole has been a shit show for quite some time,” he wrote, adding that recurring public crises force major contributors to “question what they’re even doing here.” He said friends, including AkshayBD (Chief Marketing Officer of the Solana Foundation and a co-founder of SuperteamDAO), have urged him to declare Polygon an L1 and “walk away from this circus,” and claimed the community’s “socialistic behavior” has trolled Polygon despite its contributions “because of some arbitrary ‘technical definition.’”

He argued that market structure punishes Polygon for refusing the L1 label: “It’s widely believed that if Polygon ever decided to call itself an L1, it would probably be valued 2–5× higher than it is today,” pointing to a now-widely discussed comparison: “Like think about it, Hedera Hashgraph an L1 is valued higher than Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism and Scroll combined.”

The classification dispute, in Nailwal’s telling, has real-world consequences for recognition and index inclusion. He insisted “Polygon PoS effectively hinged on Ethereum, while Katana, XLayer, and dozens of other chains in Polygon’s ecosystem are true L2s,” yet “the Ethereum community ensures Polygon is never considered an L2 and is never included in the markets’ perceived Ethereum Beta.” He added that a “prominent Polygon Stakeholder” scolded him because he “can’t get Polygon on GrowthPie, which refuses to list the Polygon chain,” and contrasted how Polymarket’s success is credited to “Ethereum” even as “Polygon itself is not Ethereum. Mind-boggling.”

Despite the frustration, Nailwal said he intends to try once more to realign technical and social consensus around scaling: “I’m going to give this a final push that might just revive the entire L2 narrative. Just bear with me for a few more weeks.” He concluded with a qualified defense of the messiness: “Ethereum is a democracy — and in any democracy, people on all sides end up disgruntled. But it’s still the only system that truly works in the long run.”

The thread drew immediate reactions from prominent builders. Andre Cronje — who says he burned “over 700 ETH on deployments and ETH infra” during his Ethereum years — questioned EF’s support priorities outright. “I tried contacting EF, never a response, no BD outreach, no grants, 0 support, not even a retweet,” Cronje wrote. Comparing his experience to Fantom’s Sonic ecosystem, he said he was “confused” to see teams there receive BD support, grants, TVL, audits and marketing, and asked: “If it isn’t the core builders, Peter & geth, and it isn’t the loudest L2 supporters (Sandeep and Polygon), where is it going?”

Tommy Shaughnessy of Delphi Ventures framed the problem as under-compensation of irreplaceable talent. “The Ethereum foundation should be paying its developers like professional athletes.[…] The Ethereum foundation is basically paying people to leave. Top developers should be paid like Pro Athletes.”

Vitalik Buterin Reacts

Buterin responded several hours later with an unusually personal note of appreciation for both Nailwal and Polygon’s contributions, while also offering a technical path forward. “I really appreciate both @sandeepnailwal’s personal contributions and @0xPolygon’s immensely valuable role in the ethereum ecosystem,” he wrote, name-checking Polygon’s role hosting Polymarket, its early and resource-intensive bets on ZK-EVM proving (“bringing in Jordi Baylina’s team”), infrastructure for proof aggregation via AggLayer, and support for “applications that have needed high levels of scalability.”

On the central technical question — whether Polygon can and should harden its security guarantees with modern zero-knowledge proofs — Buterin argued that the market has evolved toward a separation of concerns between L2 operators and ZK-prover specialists.

“It’s very difficult to be both the best L2 and the best ZK team, the two are very different skill sets,” he wrote, citing standalone ZK providers and urging Polygon to “pick up off the shelf ZK tech that has now gotten quite good and apply it to the PoS chain to get full stage 1 and later stage 2 guarantees from the ethereum L1.”

He emphasized how far the economics have moved: “Proving costs are around $0.0001/tx,” and said many L2 teams “are very surprised when I tell them the recent numbers… The latest ZK-EVMs, and live projects like @Lighter_xyz, show that this is false” with respect to the idea that ZK is unviable at hyperscale.

At press time, ETH traded at $3,873.

Ethereum price
ETH price; 1-week chart | Source: ETHUSDT on TradingView.com
Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com
Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Jake Simmons has been a Bitcoin enthusiast since 2016. Ever since he heard about Bitcoin, he has been studying the topic every day and trying to share his knowledge with others. His goal is to contribute to Bitcoin's financial revolution, which will replace the fiat money system. Besides BTC and crypto, Jake studied Business Informatics at a university. After graduation in 2017, he has been working in the blockchain and crypto sector. You can follow Jake on Twitter at @realJakeSimmons.

Related Reads

Retail Investors' 'Lead Brother' Serenity vs. Newly Minted Stock God Leopold: How Are the Two Top Hunters Mining AI's 'Physical Limits'?

The article profiles two prominent figures, Serenity and Leopold Aschenbrenner, who are gaining attention for their unconventional investment strategies focused on the physical constraints of the AI boom, moving beyond mainstream software narratives. Serenity, an anonymous online trader, advocates a "shiso leaf" theory. He targets small-cap companies with monopolies on critical, overlooked components in the AI hardware supply chain, such as specific semiconductor materials. His deep, technical analysis of bottlenecks in areas like co-packaged optics (CPO) has reportedly yielded massive returns, though his anonymity and focus on illiquid micro-cap stocks pose significant risks for followers. Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI researcher, founded a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. His macro thesis argues that physical infrastructure—power grids, land, data centers—is the true bottleneck for AI growth, lagging far behind chip production. Consequently, his fund employs an infrastructure arbitrage strategy: heavily investing in storage and compute infrastructure companies while placing massive bearish bets (put options) against major semiconductor stocks, betting their valuations will correct as physical constraints become apparent. While their methods differ—Serenity drills into microscopic supply chain details, while Leopold takes a macroscopic, infrastructure-focused view—both share a core belief: the real power and investment alpha in the AI era lie in controlling scarce physical resources, not just software. The article concludes by noting the inherent risks in both approaches, such as liquidity issues for micro-caps and timing risks for macro bets, but suggests they signal a broader market re-evaluation of AI's foundational assets.

marsbit3h ago

Retail Investors' 'Lead Brother' Serenity vs. Newly Minted Stock God Leopold: How Are the Two Top Hunters Mining AI's 'Physical Limits'?

marsbit3h ago

Who Will Make Money in the Age of Agents?

In the Agents era of blockchain, traditional value capture theories face challenges. The "Fat Protocol" theory, dominant since 2016, suggested protocols capture most value as their tokens are essential for network use. However, the proliferation of interchangeable L1s, L2s, and modular layers has eroded protocol scarcity and pricing power. Conversely, the "Fat App" theory posits that applications capturing user relationships (like wallets and exchanges) become the primary value layer by controlling distribution and transaction flows. This aligns with the current "Great Repricing" cycle. Agents disrupt this logic. As software users, they lack brand loyalty, prioritize cost and efficiency, and switch between platforms seamlessly. This undermines the front-end UX moats that "Fat Apps" rely on. The article explores several potential futures: 1. **Headless Applications:** Current leading apps could strip their front-ends and become backend API infrastructure for Agents, preserving their role. 2. **Protocol Resurgence:** If integration becomes trivial, Agents might bypass aggregators and interact directly with protocols, reviving "Fat Protocol" dynamics. 3. **Pricing Power Collapse:** Agents' rational, frictionless routing could commoditize the entire stack, compressing margins toward cost and leaving little profit for intermediaries. 4. **Unprecedented Activity:** Agents may enable new, high-frequency, machine-to-machine economic activities, expanding the total value pie even if margins are thin. 5. **A New, Unnamed Model:** Historically, major tech shifts (like the internet's attention economy) create unforeseen business models. The Agents era may spawn entirely new ways to capture value. The most likely outcome is a coexistence where "Fat Apps" continue to serve human users valuing UX, while a separate, Agent-driven economy emerges governed by different rules—where loyalty is based on factors like liquidity, latency, and settlement guarantees rather than brand.

marsbit4h ago

Who Will Make Money in the Age of Agents?

marsbit4h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of S (S) are presented below.

活动图片