The Rise and Fall of Crypto Foundations: An Ironic Tale

In the dim light of another day, a certain giant of the crypto world, known as a16z, announced that it’s time to bid farewell to the venerable old foundations. Those sturdy, bureaucratic edifices that once promised to shield and nurture the blockchain, now apparently do little more than spit in the face of decentralization. Imagine that! 🧐

They say it’s time to let communities take the wheel—perhaps to see if they can steer without crashing into each other first. The new framework’s goal? To let protocols govern themselves right from the start, as if that’s a splendid idea after all these years of meddling.

In a charming blog post, Miles Jennings, the sage of policy at a16z, practically threw the old structures under the bus, claiming they’ve become nothing but a source of friction. Who knew that non-profit foundations could be so frustrating? Perhaps they were more suited for Monopoly games than for building resilient networks.

“[…] ask any founder who’s launched a network: Few things slow you down more. Foundations now create more friction than decentralization.”

— Miles Jennings, probably with a sigh

Meanwhile, everyone’s favorite whipping boy—the Ethereum Foundation—gets a gentle nod. Yes, it helped Ethereum grow, but even so, the idea that it could have done better without the profit-driven engine of ConsenSys? Well, that’s a question only a crypto philosopher could ponder amidst the chaos.

“Does anyone think Ethereum would be better off without all the products built by for-profit entities?”

— Miles Jennings, possibly with a twinkle of sarcasm

The winds are changing. The U.S. Congress is apparently considering new rules. Instead of efforts-based decentralization—where projects pretend to be wild and free—now they want control. Great! Just what everyone needed—to replace chaos with, well, more control. 🎉

‘People spending other people’s money’

This new approach means founders can keep working on their networks without the cute disguise of vanishing into the shadows. No offshore foundations needed—just plain old, sometimes awkward, sometimes hilarious corporate setups.

Let’s be honest, foundations are no longer the clever legal trick they once were. Today, they’re costly, cumbersome, and just plain frustrating. They’re like trying to run a marathon in clown shoes—slow, painful, and prone to causing giggles from onlookers.

“The foundation funding model is patronage: Tokens are sold, money is spent, and nobody really knows if it does any good. It’s like giving a kid money to buy candy—sure, they’ll have fun, but the utility? Questionable.”

— Miles Jennings, probably with a wry smile

These foundations rely on selling tokens for fiat, spending without clear results, and operating without market discipline. It’s a giant game of make-believe, where accountability is as elusive as a unicorn in a minefield.

Meanwhile, traditional companies—those boring, profit-driven enterprises—can actually hire real talent, spend money wisely, and adapt quickly. Fancy that! They’re like the tortoise in the race—steady, predictable, and occasionally winning.

Foundations sometimes even act more like central kings—holding keys, controlling upgrades, and playing kingmaker. And the tokenholders? Well, they’re just the spectators at the show, wondering if the marionette is about to dance or fall apart.

Companies, not castles in the sky

The venture capitalists of Menlo Park aren’t just whistling Dixie—they say founding a foundation can cost a small fortune, take ages, and involve lawyers who only speak bureaucratese. In short, it’s a nightmare wrapped in a riddle, topped with legal fees.

The system’s breaking under its own weight, much like a poorly built snowman that collapses just when you’re about to swear at it. Many founders are forced to split their teams, like an ill-fated game of musical chairs, all to satisfy some ridiculous notion of separation between foundation and company. Sounds charming, doesn’t it? 🤡

“Unlike foundations, companies can deploy capital efficiently, attract talent, and respond to market forces. They’re built for growth, not charity or vague mandates.”

— Miles Jennings, chuckling quietly in the background

Of course, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. Corporate setups can be self-serving, and regulations may yet turn them into monsters. But at least they’re easier to fix, unlike the tangled web of foundations, which are simply a bureaucratic nightmare dressed up as innovation.

So here we are, at the crossroads of progress and absurdity, wondering if the crypto dream is just a fancy game of Monopoly—who wins, who loses, and who’s left holding the bag in the end. 🥴

Read More

2025-06-10 15:40