A prominent blockchain researcher has issued a robust defense of the Ethereum Foundation, countering a surge of community criticism regarding the organization's operational mandate. William Mougayar, a Toronto-based investor and author, published a statement on X titled "Leave the Foundation Alone," asserting that the entity is executing its core function precisely as intended. Mougayar delineates a critical distinction between three separate trajectories: ETH as a monetary asset, Ethereum as shared compute infrastructure, and the Foundation as a non-profit protocol steward. He argues that conflating these entities leads to erroneous market predictions and misplaced hostility, noting that the Foundation's strategic goal is to steer the protocol toward a state where its own founders become less central to its operation.

This intervention arrives as the Foundation faces intensified scrutiny over recent market movements, including significant asset liquidations and public silence. Critics have linked these actions to the underperformance of ETH, which is currently trading at $2,117.09. While the token has gained 4.67% over the past 24 hours, it remains down more than 57% from its all-time high of $4,953 recorded in August of the previous year, according to data compiled by Woofun AI. The market sentiment has been further strained by accusations that the organization's activities are directly harming price performance through aggressive selling and unstaking maneuvers.

Mougayar characterizes the Foundation's current strategy as a "subtraction path," designed to harden the protocol so that external reliance on the organization diminishes over time. He highlights that the entity is focused on shipping upgrades and funding niche research that no other actor supports, rather than engaging in promotional activities. The researcher contends that the demand for the Foundation to actively market ETH or court institutional investors is fundamentally flawed, comparing such expectations to demanding the IETF run Super Bowl advertisements for TCP/IP. Woofun AI notes that this perspective reframes the criticism as a desire for a centralized authority figure, or a "king," within a decentralized ecosystem.

Specific on-chain transactions have fueled the recent debate surrounding the Foundation's financial management. Earlier this month, the organization completed its third over-the-counter sale of ETH to BitMine Immersion Technologies, offloading 10,000 ETH at an average price of $2,292. This single transaction was valued at approximately $22.9 million. When combined with two prior transactions involving 5,000 ETH in March and another 10,000 ETH the previous week, the Foundation has sold roughly $47 million worth of ETH to BitMine in recent weeks. These sales represent a significant portion of the organization's treasury being moved into the hands of a single corporate entity.

Concurrently with the sales activity, the Foundation executed substantial unstaking operations that have drawn further attention from market observers. Shortly after the latest sale to BitMine, the organization unstaked 17,035 ETH, a move valued at around $40 million.

Additionally, earlier in the same month, the EF unstaked another 21,270 Ether from Lido, representing nearly $50 million in assets. These combined unstaking events total over $90 million in liquidity shifts, monitored by Woofun AI, which underscores the scale of capital reallocation occurring within the ecosystem's foundational layer.

The divergence between the Foundation's technical roadmap and market expectations highlights a deeper structural tension within the crypto industry. While price volatility and treasury management decisions attract immediate scrutiny, the long-term objective of protocol hardening remains the primary directive for the non-profit. Mougayar's analysis suggests that the current backlash stems from a misunderstanding of the Foundation's role as a facilitator of decentralization rather than a growth engine for token valuation. As the ecosystem matures, the separation of governance, infrastructure, and asset value will likely become increasingly distinct, challenging stakeholders to align their expectations with the actual mechanics of protocol stewardship.