Ethereum core contributors are debating a structural overhaul that could redirect Ethereum staking rewards toward ecosystem development.
The protocol-level proposal seeks to solve a persistent coordination failure of funding public goods within the broader Ethereum ecosystem. Open-source security tools, client upgrades, and network maintenance benefit all users, but financial support often falls short because participants rely on others to cover the cost.
Under the newly proposed mechanism, network validators would signal a percentage of their rewards to be redirected toward development. Ethereum validators are the entities that lock up their tokens to process transactions and secure the network
If a 51% majority of these entities supported a specific deduction rate, the redirect would become mandatory for the entire validator set. The proposal suggests capping the redirection rate at 10%.
That would turn a voluntary validator reward redirect into a network-wide funding mechanism once majority support is reached.
Proponents said the mechanism would route recurring annual funding through an automated smart contract, creating a low-maintenance, “set and forget” system.
According to the proposal, Ethereum validators earn roughly 700,000 ETH annually. So, the maximum rate that could be generated is about 70,000 ETH a year, which is approximately $120 million at current market prices.
Ethereum staking rewards proposal triggers governance alarms
While the proposed validator reward redirect offers a mathematical response to the public-goods problem, it has faced pushback from developers and legal experts who question both its incentives and governance structure.
Gabriel Shapiro, a cryptocurrency attorney, described the warnings over funding as an effort by some early contributors to preserve what he called an “Ethereum UBI,” or universal basic income.
Shapiro argued that the network is entering a more commercial phase and said funding from large institutions would be more scalable and efficient than protocol-level subsidies.
He warned that investors could view permanent developer allocations, which are sometimes described in crypto markets as “dev mines,” as a burden on the asset’s investment case.
Some of Ethereum’s technical contributors have also questioned whether guaranteed funding would improve the network’s development culture.
Lefteris Karapetsas, founder of portfolio-tracking platform Rotki, argued that a funding crunch could ultimately benefit the ecosystem. He criticized Ethereum’s core development process for lacking urgency and producing unnecessary technical complexity.
Karapetsas said that forcing developers to align more closely with commercial realities and users’ problems could produce better outcomes than creating a permanent subsidy through the protocol.
Meanwhile, the proposal also presents some governance risks.
Critics warn that large institutional staking providers could form a coalition. If the largest operators collectively controlled more than 51% of the validator weight, they could determine the funding rate and select recipients, thereby forcing the remaining validators to support projects they did not approve.
Supporters argue that delegators could move their ETH away from operators that abused the process. Opponents counter that staking market share is relatively sticky because users may be slow to leave large platforms with established liquidity, integrations, and brand recognition.
The issue is further complicated by the difference between validators and the owners of the ETH being staked. In many cases, exchanges and staking services would cast the votes using assets deposited by customers, even though those customers would bear the reduction in rewards.
Despite those concerns, the mechanism has drawn interest from some ecosystem veterans because it avoids hardcoded minimums and permanently designated recipients.
Martin Köppelmann, chief executive of Gnosis, said the proposal stood apart from previous funding models because it would allow validators to choose both the contribution rate and the recipients.
However, that decision-making process would still depend heavily on the largest staking operators, which may not always reflect the preferences of individual ETH holders.
Is Ethereum facing a looming funding crunch?
The debate over long-term funding arrives at a volatile moment for the Ethereum Foundation, the Switzerland-based nonprofit that has historically bankrolled the network’s core research.
That shift has moved Ethereum Foundation funding from a back-office concern into a live question for stakers, developers, and investors.
The organization is actively downsizing following a mandate from Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, who recently announced the Foundation would be transitioning into a “smaller ship.” Buterin outlined a plan to shrink the team and establish a narrower focus heavily indexed on censorship resistance, privacy, and security.
That structural shift has coincided with a string of high-profile departures, including that of Hsiao-Wei Wang, a co-director at the Foundation.
Her departure follows the February exit of her fellow co-director, Tomasz Stańczak, and increased the number of senior-level departures from the Foundation in recent months to around 20.
For some former insiders, the pivot masks deeper operational issues.
Dankrad Feist, a highly regarded former Ethereum researcher, stated that the talent drain is a direct result of management failures rather than strategic disagreements.
Feist suggested that the community needs an organization economically aligned with the network and led by someone willing to aggressively champion its interests, calling the current loss of talent bearish for the blockchain.
This combination of organizational retreat and policy shifts has sparked a perceived vulnerability in the network’s core development funding.
Last week, Trent Van Epps, a former Foundation contributor, warned that Ethereum’s development ecosystem could face a funding shortfall within the next three to nine months.
Van Epps pointed to institutional spending cuts and the expiration of the Client Incentive Program as primary pressures. He estimated that maintaining Ethereum’s core development requires about $30 million annually and said alternative funding mechanisms may be needed to prevent disruptions.
According to him:
“Without continuous funding, we lose people with critical context built up over years, fall behind on looming challenges like quantum computing or scaling, and ultimately risk mainnet’s reputation for reliability.”
However, the notion of an impending crisis has been disputed by prominent industry figures who argue that private enterprise will naturally step in.
Thomas Lee of BitMine dismissed the warnings outright, stating there is a “zero chance” of a funding collapse for the network and claiming that capital is already secured. BitMine is the largest corporate ETH holding firm globally.
Joseph Lubin, another Ethereum co-founder, echoed the sentiment that free-market capitalism is ultimately the most efficient driver of growth, though he noted that foundational layers might require a form of “collective capitalism.”
While Lubin acknowledged the necessity of a credibly neutral foundation to protect the core tenets of the base layer, he pointed out that a wave of well-capitalized commercial entities is preparing to bolster development across mainnet, layer-2 scaling solutions, and private enterprise networks.
Moreover, several market analysts are similarly optimistic about the privatization of Ethereum’s development.
Zach Pandl, the head of research at Grayscale, noted that moving development work to commercial organizations mirrors the economic benefits of lowering a government’s share of GDP to boost private-sector productivity.
According to him, a narrower Foundation would act much like an independent central bank, focusing on its core mandate rather than on overarching ecosystem management.
Ultimately, as Ethereum works to define its long-term relationship with layer-2 networks and commercial organizations, the question of how to finance its development remains unresolved.
The network could adopt a compulsory reward redirect, continue relying on private capital, or combine several funding models.
Whatever the outcome, it is clear that the period in which the Ethereum Foundation served as the ecosystem’s primary financial backstop appears to be drawing to a close.
