The Ethereum Foundation declares MEV the main front in the battle for network decentralization
Ethereum Foundation (EF) Interim Co-Executive Director Bastian Aue presented a detailed plan for implementing the foundation's mandate, identifying Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) as one of the critical risks to the network. Aue called MEV "the next major front in the cypherpunk war," emphasizing that combating toxic forms of value extraction is not a secondary task of market infrastructure, but the core work of the Ethereum Foundation.
In my analysis, I highlight five key threats to Ethereum's neutrality that Aue listed: privileged access to user order flow, builder cartelization, trusted relays, opaque transaction routing, and validator dependence on a narrow chain of suppliers. According to him, a formally open network can effectively turn into an intermediary one if users, at the moment of value transfer, depend on a limited number of infrastructure participants.
Why Encrypted Mempools Are Not a Panacea
Aue warned that individual technical solutions can create new risks. For example, encrypted mempools reduce pre-execution transparency but simultaneously shift the advantage to new privileged participants, including operators of specialized hardware. He also pointed out the limitations of FOCIL and ePBS: FOCIL can enhance censorship resistance but create new forms of cross-block MEV, while ePBS reduces reliance on trusted relays but risks entrenching the builder economy, hindering long-term solutions.
Aue's key conclusion is that targeted efforts against individual manifestations of MEV will not solve the problem. Value extraction must be considered at the system level, not as an isolated phenomenon.
Privacy and Payment in ETH
The second major theme of the thread is privacy. Aue advocated for a model where unconditional confidentiality first becomes available at the base layer, with mechanisms for selective data disclosure added on top. "A public ledger without serious privacy settings by default becomes a surveillance infrastructure with settlement guarantees," he stated.
Aue also announced that the EF will gradually shift employee payments and core financial relationships towards ETH and "Ethereum-native" stablecoins, provided laws or operational constraints do not prevent it. This is not a symbolic gesture, but a way to test the infrastructure on itself — foundation employees should face the same issues as users: wallet UX, volatility, accounting, privacy, and payment friction.
Staking and Spinoffs
Staking concentration is described not merely as a revenue-generating product, but as an infrastructure risk to the protocol. If the share of stake, liquidity, and access to validators become concentrated around a small number of issuers, Ethereum's security level could become vulnerable through the economic layer.
A separate section is dedicated to spinoffs — projects that may leave the EF or receive external funding. Aue emphasized that the foundation should not fund projects out of inertia, due to personal connections, or to avoid difficult decisions. The EF has limited funds, legitimacy, and a specific mandate, and the foundation will spend all three resources as if they matter.
My expert analysis: Aue's publication is not just an internal document, but a clear signal to the market. The Ethereum Foundation finally acknowledges that MEV is not a side effect, but a fundamental threat to decentralization. Interestingly, the emphasis on the "cypherpunk war" and the transition to payment in ETH demonstrates a return to Ethereum's ideological roots. However, the key challenge is whether the EF can implement these ambitious plans in practice, given limited resources and personnel changes, including the departure of several co-executive directors and the launch of the independent Ethlabs lab by former foundation researchers.