Core developers hold ultimate power. The Ethereum Foundation, Consensys, and client teams like Geth and Nethermind control the technical roadmap. Token-holder votes on platforms like Snapshot are advisory signals, not binding directives for protocol changes.
the-ethereum-roadmap-merge-surge-verge
Blog
Ethereum Governance Roles: Core Devs, Researchers, Users
A cynical yet optimistic breakdown of the informal, high-stakes power structure that actually drives Ethereum's evolution through The Merge, Surge, and Verge. Forget token voting—this is where real protocol decisions are made.
introduction
THE HIERARCHY
Introduction: The Governance Mirage
Ethereum's governance is a de facto oligarchy of core developers and researchers, not the decentralized democracy its token-holders imagine.
Researchers dictate the possible. Academics and cryptographers, such as those at the Ethereum Research forum, define the solution space for upgrades like Verkle trees or PBS. Their consensus on feasibility acts as a hard constraint for what core devs implement.
Users are relegated to exit. The primary governance mechanism for the average ETH holder or DeFi protocol like Aave or Uniswap is forking or migrating layers. This creates a governance moat where influence scales with technical capital, not just financial stake.
Evidence: The Merge's execution followed a years-long research roadmap set by core devs, with community sentiment merely validating a pre-determined technical consensus. Token-holder votes were never part of the activation mechanism.
key-trends
ETHEREUM'S DECISION-MAKING HIERARCHY
The Power Triad: Who Holds the Keys?
Ethereum's governance is a fragile, informal power structure where influence is earned, not voted on.
01
The Core Devs: Protocol's BDFLs
They control the client code. No formal veto, but a single client team can stall the network. Their power is soft but absolute.
- Ultimate Power: Can refuse to implement EIPs, effectively killing them.
- Key Risk: Centralization in Geth (Go-Ethereum) with ~80%+ client dominance.
- Real-World Leverage: Funded by grants from the Ethereum Foundation and corporate backers like ConsenSys.
~80%
Geth Dominance
5-10
Key Client Teams
02
The Researchers: Architects of Reality
They define what's technically possible. Their consensus on feasibility is the first and most critical gate.
- Agenda-Setting Power: Proposals like EIP-4844 (Proto-Danksharding) or Verkle Trees start here.
- Influence Network: Primarily based at the Ethereum Foundation Research team and academia.
- The Filter: Complex math and cryptography act as a moat, limiting who can meaningfully participate.
Core EIPs
Agenda Control
High
Technical Moat
03
The Users & Capital: The Nuclear Option
They hold the ultimate power to fork the chain, but it's economically catastrophic. Daily influence is indirect via gas fees and social consensus.
- Sovereign Power: Demonstrated in the DAO Fork and the Shanghai Upgrade (staking withdrawals).
- Economic Signals: $40B+ in staked ETH and $50B+ DeFi TVL create massive coordination costs for contentious changes.
- The Illusion: User 'governance' is mostly a veto on existential threats, not day-to-day steering.
$40B+
Staked ETH
Veto Only
Practical Power
ETHEREUM GOVERNANCE ROLES
Roadmap Power Map: Influence Across The Merge, Surge, Verge
A comparison of influence and decision-making authority for key stakeholder groups across Ethereum's core development eras.
| Governance Dimension | Core Developers (e.g., EF, Client Teams) | Protocol Researchers (e.g., EF, Academia) | Users & Capital (e.g., Stakers, DApps, VCs) |
|---|---|---|---|
Direct Code Implementation | |||
Protocol Specification (EIP) Proposal | |||
Consensus on Hard Fork Activation | ~2/3 Client Majority | Research & Social Consensus | Passive via Node Adoption |
Influence via Economic Stakes | Minimal (Reputation) | Minimal (Reputation) | Direct (32+ ETH for Staking) |
Primary Forum for Debate | AllCoreDevs Calls | Ethereum Research Forum | Social Media & Governance Platforms |
Veto Power (De Facto) | Client Implementation Refusal | Formal Proof of Critical Flaw | Mass Non-Upgrade of Nodes |
Role in The Merge (PoS Transition) | Client & Execution Layer Engineering | Cryptoeconomic & Consensus Design | Provide Validation Security (Stake) |
Role in The Surge (Scalability) | Implement Data Sharding & L2 Integration | Design ZK-proof Systems & DAS | Adopt & Provide Liquidity to L2s |
Role in The Verge (Verification) | Integrate Verkle Trees into Clients | Advance STARK/SNARK Recursion | Demand Low-Cost, Verifiable State |
deep-dive
THE POWER STRUCTURE
The Slippery Slope: From Informal Consensus to Hard Forks
Ethereum's governance is a fragile, multi-stakeholder system where informal consensus among core developers often dictates protocol evolution.
Core developers hold de facto veto power. The Ethereum Foundation and client teams like Geth and Nethermind control code implementation. Their technical consensus, formed in forums like All Core Devs calls, is the primary gate for protocol changes.
Researchers provide the ideological roadmap. Entities like the Ethereum Foundation Research team and independent groups like Flashbots define long-term visions like The Scourge or The Verge. Their proposals set the agenda but require developer buy-in to become reality.
User sovereignty is largely a myth. While EIPs undergo public discussion, the technical complexity creates a steep knowledge barrier. Major decisions, like the DAO fork or the transition to Proof-of-Stake, demonstrate that user sentiment follows, not leads, core technical consensus.
Informal processes create systemic risk. The lack of formalized governance, unlike on-chain systems like Arbitrum DAO, concentrates influence. This creates a slippery slope where coordination failures or ideological splits, as seen in past Ethereum Classic forks, remain a constant threat.
risk-analysis
GOVERNANCE TRILEMMA
Fault Lines: Where This Informal Model Breaks
Ethereum's governance relies on a fragile, unwritten consensus between three key groups. When their incentives diverge, the system cracks.
01
The Coordination Failure
The core devs' power to unilaterally push EIPs creates a principal-agent problem. Users and client teams are left to coordinate opposition reactively, as seen with ProgPoW and EIP-1559's initial miner backlash.\n- Risk: Hard forks and chain splits when consensus fails.\n- Reality: Governance is a veto game, not a proposal game.
2+
Major Fork Threats
Months
Coordination Lag
02
The Resource Imbalance
Protocol research is dominated by well-funded entities like the Ethereum Foundation and ConsenSys. Independent researchers and small client teams lack the $500k+ annual budgets to compete, centralizing influence.\n- Result: Roadmap bias towards L1-centric scaling (Danksharding) over alternative visions.\n- Metric: >60% of core dev calls feature employees from top 3 orgs.
>60%
Call Dominance
$500k+
Budget Floor
03
The Abstraction Gap
End-users (via MetaMask, Coinbase) and $30B+ DeFi TVL are the ultimate stakeholders but have zero formal voice. Governance is abstracted to client diversity and social consensus, which breaks under existential threats.\n- Symptom: The DAO Fork set the precedent of social over code.\n- Vulnerability: A contentious fork today would force apps like Uniswap and Aave to pick sides, fracturing liquidity.
$30B+
TVL at Risk
0
Formal Votes
04
The L2 Sovereignty Challenge
Optimism's Citizens' House and Arbitrum DAO now govern chains with $10B+ in bridged value. Their technical dependence on Ethereum L1 creates a governance schism: who decides on critical L1 upgrades that break L2s?\n- Conflict: Ethereum core devs can inadvertently brick major L2s with an EIP.\n- Precedent: The EIP-4844 (Blobs) rollout required intense, informal L2 coordination.
$10B+
Bridged Value
0
Formal L1 Votes
future-outlook
THE GOVERNANCE TRILEMMA
The Verge and Beyond: Can Informality Scale?
Ethereum's informal governance model faces a scalability crisis as protocol complexity outpaces its loose coordination mechanisms.
Informality is a feature, not a bug. Ethereum's core development relies on rough consensus among client teams (Geth, Nethermind, Besu), researchers (EF, L2BEAT), and Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) authors. This avoids centralized control but creates a coordination bottleneck for major upgrades like Verge or Purge.
Complexity outruns consensus. The transition to a stateless client paradigm requires deep changes to the EVM and networking layer. Informal coordination struggles with the technical debt and testing surface of this work, unlike the formalized processes of Polygon's zkEVM or Optimism's OP Stack governance.
Users are a theoretical force. While Lido's stETH or Uniswap's UNI holders represent massive economic stakes, their influence on core protocol changes is indirect. Governance power concentrates in client implementers and large node operators, creating a legitimacy gap as the network scales.
Evidence: The Shanghai Upgrade. The activation of withdrawals required a hard-fork coordination between seven major client teams. This process, while successful, exposed the fragility of scaling informal processes for increasingly interdependent protocol layers.
takeaways
POWER DYNAMICS & INFLUENCE
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Ethereum's governance is a multi-polar power structure where influence is earned, not granted. Understanding the roles is key to navigating protocol upgrades.
01
Core Developers: The Builders with Veto Power
Client teams like Geth, Nethermind, and Prysm hold ultimate execution power. They can refuse to implement EIPs, making them the system's final gatekeepers. Their influence stems from technical credibility and maintaining the network's ~$450B security budget.
- Key Leverage: Control over client software and hard fork coordination.
- Primary Constraint: Reputational risk and community backlash for unilateral action.
5
Major Clients
100%
Implementation Power
02
Researchers: The Agenda-Setters
Entities like the Ethereum Foundation, Flashbots, and L2 research teams drive the long-term roadmap through R&D. They produce EIPs (e.g., EIP-4844, EIP-7702) that define technical frontiers like scaling and account abstraction. Influence is non-binding but critical for aligning core devs.
- Key Leverage: First-principles research and defining tractable problems.
- Primary Constraint: Must achieve rough consensus among implementers.
2-5 years
Roadmap Horizon
~100
Active EIPs
03
Stakers & Users: The Economic Voice
The ~$90B in staked ETH and ~1M daily active users provide economic signaling. This group exercises soft power through staking/client choice, transaction volume, and social consensus. Major applications (e.g., Uniswap, Lido) can mobilize this bloc.
- Key Leverage: Control of economic value and network usage.
- Primary Constraint: Diffuse, slow to coordinate, lacks direct code control.
$90B
Staked ETH
26%
APR Slashed
04
The All Core Devs Call: The De Facto Senate
The bi-weekly ACD call is where rough consensus is forged. It's a public, technical forum where researchers propose, core devs critique, and timelines are negotiated. This is where governance gets real, as seen in debates over EIP-1559 and The Merge.
- Key Process: Live technical debate and implementation scheduling.
- Output: Concrete hard fork agendas and client assignments.
Bi-Weekly
Cadence
~3 hours
Avg. Duration
05
The Coordination Problem: Why Forks Are Rare
Ethereum's social consensus model makes contentious forks nearly impossible. Competing factions (Core Devs vs. ETC, EigenLayer vs. Restakers) must align ~90% of stakeholders. This creates immense inertia, protecting the chain from capture but slowing radical change.
- Result: Evolution is incremental, not revolutionary.
- Metric: Zero successful contentious hard forks since 2016.
>90%
Consensus Threshold
0
Contentious Forks
06
Strategic Takeaway: Influence Through Code
For protocol architects, the only reliable path to influence is writing code that gets merged. Proposals must solve clear problems for core devs (e.g., reducing technical debt) or users (e.g., lowering fees). Abstract governance tokens are irrelevant; GitHub commits are sovereign.
- Action: Contribute client implementations or critical EIP tooling.
- Avoid: Proposing changes without a prototype or client team buy-in.
GitHub
Real Governance
Code
Primary Lever
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall