V God Reflects on Ethereum: The Protocol is Too Complex, Users Are Forced to Blindly Trust

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin posted on X, pointing out that the Ethereum blockchain needs to better explain its functions to users in order to achieve true “trustlessness,” which is a common challenge faced by all blockchain protocols. He explained that an important but underestimated form of trustlessness is increasing the number of people who can truly understand the entire protocol from start to finish. Ethereum needs to do better in this regard by simplifying protocols.

The True Definition of Trustlessness and Current Dilemmas

“Trustless” is the core promise of blockchain technology, meaning that protocols operate entirely through code, automatically executing rules without developer oversight. However, Buterin pointed out a fatal paradox: if the protocol is too complex, only a few can participate in its operation, then in practice, others still need to trust that group.

Ethereum itself has the trustless feature because transactions and smart contracts are executed by open-source code and a decentralized network of validators. But this technical trustlessness does not equate to user-level trustlessness. When an ordinary user cannot understand Ethereum’s consensus mechanism, Gas fee calculation logic, or the technical details of EIP upgrade proposals, they are effectively “blindly trusting” the core development team.

What is the fundamental difference between this trust and trust in traditional financial systems? In banking systems, users trust the management and regulatory authorities. In current Ethereum, users trust Vitalik and the core development team. Although Ethereum’s code is open source and auditable, if only a very few people have the ability to audit, the value of this open source nature is greatly diminished.

Buterin’s warning highlights a collective blind spot in the blockchain industry. Over the past few years, Ethereum has continuously added new features: transitioning from PoW to PoS, introducing sharding, launching EIP-1559, deploying Layer-2 scaling solutions, exploring ZK-Rollup. Each innovation has its technical rationale, but the accumulated complexity has reached a level where even ordinary developers find it difficult to fully grasp, let alone regular users.

The Deadly Trade-off Between Function Stacking and Comprehensibility

Buterin states, “We should be willing to reduce some features at times,” which is a bold and courageous stance. In the tech industry, “more features are better” is almost the default logic. Product managers are accustomed to continuously adding new features to meet user needs, while removing features is often seen as a step backward or compromise.

However, in the blockchain space, this logic can be fatal. Every added feature increases abstraction, introduces new attack vectors, and adds to the understanding burden. When the system becomes sufficiently complex, a qualitative change occurs: it shifts from an “understandable complex system” to a “trust-only black box system.” This is precisely what Buterin aims to avoid.

Three Dangerous Signals of Ethereum’s Increasing Complexity

Centralization of Core Developers: The number of people who can fully understand Ethereum’s protocol continues to decrease, forming a technical aristocracy.

Rising User Comprehension Barriers: Ordinary users cannot judge the reasonableness of protocol upgrades and are forced to rely on authoritative endorsements.

Expansion of Security Audit Blind Spots: As system complexity exceeds the capacity of individual audit teams, potential vulnerabilities become harder to detect.

Current specific challenges Ethereum faces include: the technical details of the consensus mechanism (PoS) are extremely complex, involving beacon chain, validator selection, punishment mechanisms, and more; Gas fee calculation (post EIP-1559 base fee + tip model) is a mystery to most users; Layer-2 ecosystems (Optimism, Arbitrum, zkSync, etc.) each have different security models, making it difficult for users to assess risks; cross-chain bridges rely on complex cryptographic assumptions, and ordinary users can only “gamble on luck.”

The Dilemma and Possible Paths to Simplify Protocols

Buterin’s call for simplification faces practical difficulties. Ethereum has already deployed thousands of smart contracts and DeFi protocols, and any protocol-level simplification could break existing applications’ compatibility. Additionally, Ethereum needs to compete with other high-performance public chains; if simplification leads to reduced functionality, it may lose developers and users.

Possible paths to simplification include: freezing protocol-level new features and focusing on documentation and education to help more people understand existing mechanisms; modularizing complex features so users can choose to use them selectively rather than bearing all complexity; optimizing user interfaces to hide underlying technical details and make operations more intuitive; and establishing layered architecture, keeping core protocols simple and understandable while pushing complex features to Layer-2.

Buterin’s reflection demonstrates a mature founder’s self-critical ability. Many blockchain projects fall into a “technology arms race,” constantly stacking new features to generate buzz. But at the peak of Ethereum’s market cap of hundreds of billions of dollars, Buterin calls for doing less. This courage is worth deep industry reflection.

Trustlessness is not only a technical attribute but also a social attribute. When only a very few technical elites can understand and verify protocols, the trust structure difference between blockchain and traditional finance diminishes. If Ethereum is to maintain its original intention of decentralization and trustlessness, it must find a new balance between innovation and simplification.