Vitalik criticizes Pump.fun, sparking controversy and highlighting the conflict of values within the Ethereum community.

Recently, a comment made by Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin on Farcaster has sparked widespread controversy. Vitalik criticized certain blockchains for lacking a clear philosophical foundation and values, and provided examples of what he considers "good" applications and "bad" applications. This statement has generated strong reactions both within and outside the Ethereum community, highlighting the differences in value concepts across different blockchain ecosystems.

Vitalik pointed out that 80% of the applications on Ethereum have specific purposes, and the types of applications developers choose to build largely depend on what they believe Ethereum should play in the world. Therefore, he believes that having the right concept is crucial. He cited Railgun, Farcaster, Polymarket, and others as positive examples, while listing some projects as negative cases.

This statement has sparked intense discussions within the Ethereum community and other blockchain ecosystems. Some question whether Vitalik has the authority to set "moral standards" for the entire industry, while others believe that this remark reflects a fundamental divergence in values between Ethereum and other public chains.

The core figure of a trading platform believes that the applications criticized by Vitalik are actually betting markets that combine internet content with attention economy, a model that is widely accepted in their ecosystem. In a certain blockchain community, a more common value is "liberalism": as long as users are willing to take on risks, any type of application can exist. In contrast, the Ethereum community typically places greater emphasis on the "moral positioning" of applications.

Some opinions suggest that this controversy is not simply a "Ethereum vs non-Ethereum" opposition, but rather reflects the differing positions of three camps: Ethereum, a certain blockchain, and a certain Layer 2 project. The latter two unexpectedly stand on the same side on this issue, jointly opposing the negative labeling of specific applications.

Some industry insiders believe that Vitalik's views may have changed. They point out that ten years ago, Vitalik may not have been so opposed to certain types of applications, but his current stance is clearly much stricter. More notably, many developers within the Ethereum ecosystem have publicly expressed their opposition, indicating that Vitalik's "moral critique" has indeed touched a sensitive nerve.

In this regard, some have expressed that the differences in the atmosphere of different blockchain ecosystems mainly stem from groups of people with differing values being attracted to each other, rather than being determined by the underlying technological features. There are also views that, as application developers, they are more concerned with the actual performance of the chain and the completeness of the ecosystem, rather than the "philosophical view" behind it.

Despite sparking controversy, some people express respect for Vitalik's consistent stance. They believe that Vitalik has never abandoned his early ideas for the sake of project success, nor has he become a mere "Ethereum cheerleader" chasing token price increases. In contrast, many other project founders have changed their original intentions after achieving success.

Some analyses point out that many people are disappointed with Vitalik because they hope to see a role more like an "entrepreneur" or "politician." However, Vitalik has always maintained a "missionary" style of idealism, and this consistency is worthy of respect. They believe that Vitalik is more like the source of ideas in the crypto industry rather than an authority that must be obeyed.

Overall, this controversy reveals the differences in values and development concepts within the Ethereum community and between it and other blockchain ecosystems. It also provokes deep reflection on issues such as the essence of blockchain technology, application boundaries, and the role positioning of founders.