From e38cf14ee9c9744b775fce152adb48dee06e3320 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: wackerow <54227730+wackerow@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 12:40:35 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] feat: text version of ef mandate --- public/content/foundation/index.md | 4 + public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md | 1126 ++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 1130 insertions(+) create mode 100644 public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md diff --git a/public/content/foundation/index.md b/public/content/foundation/index.md index 57a69d217ca..7580214935b 100644 --- a/public/content/foundation/index.md +++ b/public/content/foundation/index.md @@ -13,6 +13,10 @@ The [Ethereum Foundation](http://ethereum.foundation/) (EF) is a non-profit orga The EF is not a company, or even a traditional non-profit. It does not control or lead Ethereum, nor is it the only organization that funds critical development of Ethereum-related technologies. The EF is one part of a much larger [ecosystem](/community/). +## EF Mandate {#ef-mandate} + +The [EF Mandate](/foundation/mandate/) defines the Foundation's purpose, principles, and commitments to the Ethereum ecosystem. Published onchain, it enshrines the EF's dedication to **censorship resistance, open source, privacy, and security (CROPS)** as non-negotiable priorities. + ## What the EF does {#what-the-ef-does} - **Protocol development** – Supporting teams working on Ethereum's core protocol, including client development, research, upgrades, and the [bug bounty program](/bug-bounty/) diff --git a/public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md b/public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..4019055e450 --- /dev/null +++ b/public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md @@ -0,0 +1,1126 @@ +--- +title: Ethereum Foundation Mandate +description: The Ethereum Foundation Mandate in text form +hideEditButton: true +sidebarDepth: 1 +lang: en +--- + +# The Ethereum Foundation Mandate {#mandate} + +- [Graphical PDF version](https://ethereum.foundation/ef-mandate.pdf) +- [Canonically signed onchain source (via Blockscout explorer)](https://eth.blockscout.com/tx/0x5dd574df963a1df1f064791e0f6ff41ec972cdbba12293b7e1ece582052ba855) - Select "View details", under _Raw input_ selecting _UTF-8_ + +## I. ETHEREUM {#i-ethereum} + +**Ethereum was born out of a dream. A dream for freedom.** + +Not just for one, not just for many, but for all who are ready to grasp it with +their own hands. + +**Its creators realized that the armamentarium of freedom was missing two vital +tools: self-sovereign computation, and the computational ability to coordinate +at scale without violating anyone else’s own sacrosanct self-sovereignty.** + +Only if a user had the final say over their own computation - their data, their +assets, their instructions, their identities, their agents, their essential +digital gestalt, and the right to exit from any system that proves unfavorable +to those things - would they have any chance in the brave new electronic world, +of being able to live in the way they truly want and deserve. + +If you want only self-sovereignty of computation, and do not need to coordinate, +then you can run applications locally on your own machine - and in many +situations this is the correct approach. If you want to coordinate, but do not +mind being at the whims of centralized, unaccountable power, then we will only +say that centralized platforms can often provide excellent user experience. + +The value of Ethereum is precisely in the space of computational needs where we +need both. + +Money was the first application. Money requires coordination, because it has no +meaning without someone else to recognize both the asset itself, and the +blockchain as a living registry of who owns that asset. And money requires self- +sovereignty, because the losses from having one’s money arbitrarily inflated +away, frozen or simply expropriated are so high. + +Ether is a store of value and money, that also happens to be an application - +and there have been, and will be, many, many more. This includes those imagined +in the Ethereum Whitepaper, those described and built over the last twelve +years, and others not yet conceived of - and Ethereum will be home to all of +them. + +**Ethereum honors its first promise, to enable self-sovereignty, by being +humanity’s common computational substrate that anyone can interact with +trustlessly, permissionlessly, and persistently.** + +**This is what is meant by “The World Computer.”** + +**On this foundation Ethereum honors its second promise: allowing the +infrastructures of self-sovereign coordination to arise and thrive in any form +imaginable and expressible - unmolested, unimpeded, and undisturbed - without +violating any individual’s freedom.** + +Ethereum is meant to be a liberatory technology - not just from power relations +that are imposed without true consent or where dissent imposes a heavy price, +but even more importantly, from attempts to order reality itself in a way that +leaves no alternative. + +And the Ethereum Foundation exists to ensure Ethereum remains resilient enough +to be so. + +## II. OUR ROLE {#ii-our-role} + +**The Ethereum Foundation is the original steward of the Ethereum project.** + +We helped grow Ethereum from its early days as a seedling software project into +today’s infinite garden that countless participants use to grow their own +projects - and we did this by making deliberate, considered choices, with the +aim of inspiring others to become fellow custodians of a vibrant, open, and +infinite commons. + +The underlying principles that led us to conceive of, invent, then steward +Ethereum, and the unwavering belief that it is possible to build and maintain a +better world without caprice or coercion - could have led to many destinations +other than Ethereum, whether in computing, communications, artificial +intelligence, education, health, expression in all its forms, and many other +domains. + +By asking ourselves “if we had these principles, and we operated in a different +domain, what would we create?”, then seeing what things in our existing world +come closest, we can start to find our natural allies. + +But to find dependable allies, not merely allies of convenience that remain for +only one finite round of the infinite game, we need to be clear about what our +principles are, and this document is where we express and enshrine them. + +**The Foundation is not the parent, owner, or ruler of Ethereum. We are not “the +system” itself.** + +Our role is to coordinate, to provide substrate, and to offer context that helps +anyone who shares our purpose to work together - without creating a centralizing +bottleneck, and without collapsing into a monoculture that drifts toward goals +misaligned with Ethereum’s core promises. + +The Foundation exists to ensure Ethereum becomes, and stays, a decentralized and +resilient civilizational foundational infrastructure - part of the bedrock on +which broader self-sovereignty can be built, alongside other requirements like +clean air, water, energy, freedom of communication, and access to knowledge. + +**Our ultimate goal is for Ethereum to pass the _walkaway_ test:** its protocol and +core application layers become robust and trustless enough that they would +continue to reliably function and evolve even if the Foundation and today’s core +developers disappeared tomorrow. + +**We are a real non-profit - independent, with no other agenda.** We reject +temptations around flows of value, even when they are framed as reasonable +rewards, or as necessary for alignment or self-perpetuation. We consider them +antithetical to our mission and our legal constitution. These are slippery +slopes to arbitrary extraction and insidious capture, with many such cases +exemplified elsewhere. **Our enduring assets are our legitimacy and virtue, and we +will not risk or squander them.** + +Our bottom line is not profit, nor organizational growth, nor blind adoption at +all costs. We support adoption insofar as it does not contravene our mandate. + +**Our bottom line is the mission of securing Ethereum’s resilience.** + +Our primary and secondary measures of success are how much self-sovereignty, and +how much sovereignty-preserving coordination at scale, Ethereum resiliently +enables - both with and without the Foundation. + +**This document is primarily for members of the Foundation: a clarification of our +pre-existing purpose, and a practical guide for translating mission and +principles into action, in the context of not just being stewards of Ethereum +but also fellow travelers on the path of freedom, empowerment, and human well- +being.** + +We write it for the present onwards. We acknowledge we have not always succeeded +in the past, but we will succeed going forward. + +## III. OUR MANDATE {#iii-our-mandate} + +**The Ethereum Foundation’s mandate is twofold.** + +**The first aim is to ensure Ethereum becomes and stays a decentralized and +resilient tool for self-sovereignty: our first fundamental principle is that a +user has the final say over their identities, assets, actions, and agents.** + +It is certain that Ethereum will be used in many other ways, but we believe +applications only become truly meaningful if they rest on this inalienable +foundation of user self-sovereignty. + +**It is therefore necessary for us to ensure that Ethereum upholds and contains +the following properties:** + +- **Censorship Resistance** +- **Open Source and Free, as in Freedom** +- **Privacy** +- **Security** + +**We hold that these properties - CROPS - must remain, as an indivisible whole, +the sine qua non of all Ethereum’s development priorities, which cannot be +displaced.** + +**They are Ethereum’s most important properties and are inseparable from its +success.** + +**Therefore, we ourselves must embody these properties as a guiding principle and +prioritize them in all our decisions.** + +**The second aim is scaling the guaranteed availability of self-sovereignty to +users ready to exercise it directly.** + +**This is our second fundamental principle: that unstoppable self-sovereignty must +become possible for those who choose it, at the scale and in the form that they +want it, without violating anyone else’s.** + +We believe that self-sovereignty is positive, is positive-sum, and that self- +sovereignty at scale is the dominant positive-sum strategy. + +We believe that self-sovereignty is competitively scalable without compromise on +CROPS, and that sovereignty-preserving coordination at scale is possible. + +We believe that self-sovereignty stacks on top of itself on multiple overlapping +scales: individuals, families, local communities, enterprises, nations, +religions, world-spanning internet communities all deserve their space to +maintain their own internal accounting and to interact with each other on their +own terms. + +We further believe these views are shared by a critical mass of people. While +Ethereum is permissionless, the Foundation will remain focused on working with +those who share our vision and sense of mission. + +We recognize that self-sovereignty itself is just one crucial component of a +greater goal - namely, human empowerment and well-being - championed by loose +coalitions of builders of a brighter future. + +Only through being a decentralized and resilient self-sovereignty tool, imbued +throughout with CROPS, and unstoppable at scale while preserving individual +freedom, can Ethereum’s essential nature be recognized: a secure, user-aligned +World Computer that can be shared with all who want it. + +And only through the Foundation enshrining its principles and vision for all to +see, can it be most effective in ensuring Ethereum blossoms. + +**Our Mandate is written for a thousand-year horizon. Principled adherence is +subject to drift and erosion over time - like water, standards tend to flow from +high to low, and are far easier to lose than to regain. We are starting as high +as we can, to slow any long-run erosion over centuries, so we do not expect any +material compromise within our lifetimes.** + +
+SOURCE SEPPUKU LICENSE +
+ +> By inclusion of this license, the author, maintainer, editor or (re)distributor +> (the “Actor”) of this software SHALL uphold the following pledges: +> +> To always make freely available and publicly accessible a full and accurate copy +> of the source code and associated documents of this software, including all +> modifications hereto by the Actor. +> +> To take his or her own life with a sword upon failure to uphold any of the +> pledges in this license, or upon modification or removal of any part of this +> license. +> +> May the Foundation fall on its own sword if it fails to uphold its solemn +> promise to Ethereum. + +
+
+ +## IV. PRINCIPLES FOR ACTION {#iv-principles-for-action} + +**Our Mandate rests on two pillars, each comprising four principles.** + +**Everything we do - technical work both at the protocol layer and elsewhere, +community support, and decision-making - must be derived from and answer to +these twin pillars and their principles, with CROPS treated as non-negotiable.** + +### Technical Pillar {#iv-technical-pillar} + +- **Censorship Resistance:** No actor can selectively exclude valid use or break + functionality, including by gaining durable, non-competitive control of any + critical mechanisms. + +All work must be architected to be maximally unstoppable and to function without +incorporating centralized intermediaries or kill switches. + +The provision of unstoppability should itself be censorship-resistant to avoid +it becoming an anticompetitive and extractive game of selectively providing +censorship-resistance to the compliant, to cartels, or to highest bidders +without proper competition. + +Censorship resistance also includes technical resistance to extra-technical +pressure, such as social mores or legal restriction. The protocol relies on +cryptographic guarantees for its resilience and neutrality, not on the temporal +concerns of the political context. Our work must protect the protocol from +attempts to replace fundamental physical properties with short-term brittle +mechanisms to try to achieve the same thing. + +- **Open Source and Free, as in Freedom:** No privileged code or hidden + specifications. + +All work must be public and auditable: no proprietary “black boxes.” All work +must also be forkable: Ethereum’s credibility depends on predictable exit paths, +and systems that aren’t open and free have unacceptable friction to forking. + +Supported projects must pledge that they will not change their open source or +copyleft license in the future. Permissive licenses are accepted, viral copyleft +licenses are appreciated, but merely source-available licenses are not +tolerated. + +- **Privacy:** User data is not exposed beyond necessity or against their interests. + +We strongly advocate for maximal privacy to become the default for user data to +the greatest extent possible: first in any tools that sit above the protocol +that the Ethereum Foundation builds, and then ultimately in the protocol itself +from the very core on out. + +The purpose of privacy is to prevent structural power asymmetries from +infringing on self-sovereignty and self-sovereign coordination. History shows us +that the wielders of power, once they gain the ability to restrict or even de- +normalize privacy, will never surrender the advantage they obtain. Hence, +privacy must be permissionless and available to all. + +Privacy is not about total concealment of everything. It is about freedom and +true consent: to choose what information to disclose to whom, on one’s own +terms. In our day-to-day lives, we often disclose information, or prove claims +about ourselves, to participate with others, or to build relationships on trust, +gradually. + +However, we believe that end users should always selectively negotiate their +disclosures, and that this should only be supported on top of a base of freely +available, unconditional privacy. + +- **Security:** Things must do what they claim to do, no more and no less. + +Security is paramount. We advocate rigorous security design at both the protocol +and application layers to prevent harm to users and preserve system integrity. +We invest deeply in testing and verification, using multiple methods to specify +desired properties and confirm that designs satisfy them. + +Security requires simplicity, including responsible minimization of lines of +code and external dependencies; a protocol is not “trustless” if only a small +number of people can understand how it works and why it is secure. Work must be +verifiable to many. Entirely new domains for the protocol must clear an +extremely high necessity threshold, and do so legibly. + +Security also means governance minimization; no social layer should override +protocol guarantees lightly. + +Security additionally means passing the walkaway test, not just for the +protocol, but also for users: self-sovereignty means a user should not be forced +into frequent, complex migrations that create unintended risks. + +True security protects both system and users from technical failure, social +entrapment, and coercion. + +--- + +**We must always remember that the ultimate goal is for Ethereum to pass the +walkaway test. Achieving this needs, among other things, intermediary +minimization and structural decentralization, and the best way to achieve that +is to build with our CROPS principles in mind.** + +### Social Pillar {#iv-social-pillar} + +- **Principled Alignment:** Our first principle is that we are principled in our work. + +We focus on work which embodies our principles and not on work which allows +private capture or uncompetitive user extraction. + +We value the quality of principle-upholding resilience over the quantity of +users or the optimization-for-value of design. + +A billion users in a centralized silo is not a success; designing around the +enshrinement of centralized extraction pipelines in the protocol is not a +success; it is a failure of mission. + +- **Discipline:** We care about doing it right and doing it well. + +We are truth-seeking and beauty-seeking in our work. We demand technical rigor, +excellence, and creativity. + +We choose relevant timing over either going fast or going slow, which may +include not acting at all. We share research and results quickly; we make sure +what we ship is mission-critically reliable. + +We exercise courage to make hard, potentially unpopular, decisions based on +principled assessments rather than market pressure or institutional comfort. We +accept that rejecting and reforming compromised defaults is part of our work. We +defend our decisions with patience and truthfulness. + +We also admit when we get things - particularly big things - wrong, with +humility, grace, and an honest and clear explanation of why our views have +changed and what our new views are. + +We pair high standards with kindness: resilient systems are built by people who +can disagree clearly without cruelty and who can stay curious when under +pressure. + +- **Right Association:** Who we work with is itself a principled choice. + +We prioritize working with individuals and teams who share our principles, +spread them, and make their work legible through comprehensive and open +documentation even in challenging conditions. + +For projects dependent on support from the Foundation, we prefer to work more +closely with those who also actively work to achieve independence from us. + +Right association also means we prefer to focus on individuals, teams, and +projects that share our principles but operate in different domains, over those +individuals, teams, and projects who are in crypto, but operate according to a +very different set of standards. + +- **Big Picture:** We remember that Ethereum’s future is bigger than its present. + +Our horizon is broader than crypto: Ethereum’s promise only holds if it serves +self-sovereignty beyond any one subculture, asset class, or industry. + +The World Computer is decentralized infrastructure for permissionless compute, +communication, and association, and it naturally connects to builders who uphold +those freedoms: open source projects, privacy and cryptography researchers, +civil liberties defenders, educators and public-interest technologists, builders +of resilient local communities, and the quiet maintainers of civilization who +keep essential systems and traditions running. + +We remember that we require of them no aesthetic conformity, only principled +alignment: when people share the instinct to keep systems forkable, censorship +resistant, private, and secure, we treat them as fellow travelers of the path +and fellow stewards of the infinite garden. + +Our loose coalition does not need to be put together. It is together. + +## V. CARRYING OUT THE WORK {#v-carrying-out-the-work} + +### Approach {#v-approach} + +**Our operating approach can be summarized as a process of subtraction for +resilience.** + +Ethereum is more resilient when it can continue to provide self-sovereignty and +sovereignty-preserving coordination at scale without depending on us to guide +it. + +We therefore have a bias toward work that makes us less necessary over time, +through a framework that guides our approach: + +- **The Only-EF Rule:** We focus on critical tasks that have no other natural home and + that no other ecosystem actor can or will reliably undertake. This includes but + is not limited to: core protocol upgrades and long-horizon research, neutral + multi-client specs and tests, public-good security work, crisis coordination, + preventing chokepoints, and core dev tooling and documentation where no + sustainable owner exists. We check that these tasks are actually critical. + +- **Handoff for Ecosystem Maturity:** As soon as a function or role can be + successfully managed by an aligned community actor, we facilitate that + transition, so capability and responsibility diffuse through our ecosystem + rather than concentrate in one place. + +- **Independent Inspiration and Reliability:** We work across varied domains rather + than in a narrowly hierarchical manner - the glue that connects us is our + mission, not our structure. We hire individuals who are deeply aligned with the + mission. We prize those individuals who operate with high integrity and + flexibility, as in our experience, they have been the most effective in rapidly + changing conditions and are the most reliable during uncertainty. + +- **Compounding Effects:** We prioritize efforts that are as far upstream and high + leverage as possible, by making sure the research, documentation, coordination, + and infrastructure we support can be freely reused, extended, and operated + independently. This can include supporting shared primitives, specifications, + tooling, and evaluation methods that reduce avoidable friction and create + network effects for those who share our principles. When we work downstream, it + is on making CROPS-native affordances competitive and viable for adoption. + +- **Subtraction as Success:** Our goal is to reduce the Foundation’s relative + influence over time. This is not retreat or sabotage. Subtraction is rather a + process of ensuring Ethereum’s maturity: a trajectory of growth with + decentralization, robust enough to outgrow and outlast us, however long this may + take. + +Doing subtraction well is challenging. + +At first glance, there seems to be a tension between stewarding something to +grow into the infinite, and deliberately diminishing one’s own presence. It is +an especially unusual act from an organization of our type and current influence +‐ the landscape of contemporary corporate philanthropy is littered with +eterna foundations and institutes. Many will be discomforted and ask, “if the +Ethereu Foundation, with its stature and legitimacy, doesn’t strive to stay +front and center, then who else realistically could?” + +There are also concrete instances of failure in subtraction in the past. There +have been many attempts to create alternative stewards within Ethereum that have +died out, and there have been many attempts, both within the Ethereum ecosystem +and far outside it, to nurture federated ecosystems with multiple actors, that +ended up unable to get past the stage of one of them dominating far above the +others. These failures each have valuable lessons that we must honestly +recognize, and learn from. + +Yet, we believe, and history shows us time and again, that the only way to grow +a garden into something truly infinite is to choose subtraction. Ethereum’s +resilience and therefore runaway growth can only truly arise where there is no +single indispensable entity responsible for the ecosystem’s success. History is +filled with examples of transition stages that started off temporary then became +permanent. For decentralization to truly take root, we must keep growing toward +it today, not tomorrow. + +This does not mean our subtraction takes place carelessly and inconsiderately. +Subtraction means ecosystem growth that outpaces ours. It requires the highest +standards of observation, planning, and execution. Our subtraction happens when +the systems we support can attain or have achieved greater resilience with +others, either inside or beyond Ethereum, or without needing anyone at all. + +Subtraction done well is subtractive of the Foundation, but additive for +Ethereum. The privilege of stewarding Ethereum must not be hoarded, but shared +and multiplied with others, whether they have been loyal friends since the +beginning or new travelers who have discovered the Infinite Garden. + +This is why subtraction is a definitive signal of success. The garden can become +bigger, stronger, and more vibrant than any organizations could ever dictate, +when the mission of ensuring Ethereum remains humanity’s common computational +substrate is shared with all who recognize the future as it should be. + +The more Ethereum succeeds, the tinier we become; if Ethereum fails, so too will +we perish. + +Subtraction will occur either way, so we choose success. + +### Limits {#v-limits} + +**Our limits exist for the same reason: Ethereum’s resilience.** + +The Foundation does not build for everyone. We contribute technical expertise +and provide underlying support so those aligned with Ethereum’s self-sovereignty +mission - and its potential for sovereignty-preserving coordination at scale - +can build Ethereum and build on Ethereum, and so that they in turn can build for +everyone. + +**Our contributions may take many forms, but we are not bound to them - as +Ethereum evolves, so too will our support.** + +Today, we may support coordination both of the core protocol and beyond it; +support education and public portals; close essential funding gaps; or provide +stewardship in other principles-aligned ways. + +Tomorrow, we will adapt to do what is necessary, by applying our execution +strategy: identifying and relieving coordination bottlenecks, and preventing +capture of the protocol or ecosystem. + +**In short, we do for Ethereum, what Ethereum is meant to do for its users.** + +To maintain our role as a credibly neutral steward, we operate within clear +limits. We avoid activities that could create a centralized point of control +(including ourselves) or compromise Ethereum’s long-term potential. + +- **We are NOT a Corporate:** We are not a development company. We do not build + consumer apps. If it can be a sustainable business, it belongs in the community, + and use of the protocol must not depend on it. + +- **We are NOT a Kingmaker:** We support mechanisms and designs that are in line with + our mandate and core principles, not specific private brands or companies. We + neither support nor enforce standards that compromise on our principles and + goals. + +- **We are NOT an Accreditation Body:** We do not certify or endorse projects, teams, + or audits. However, we do support the development of mechanisms in line with our + principles to help users evaluate security and legitimacy without relying on us + to provide stamps of approval. + +- **We are NOT a Product Studio:** We do not act as a product development laboratory + for the ecosystem. We think deeply about how users interact with Ethereum and + use this to inform our upstream work on shared primitives, tooling, and + fundamental research, all in service of helping builders deliver systems and + products that are practical to use, sustainably viable, and capable of + accelerating the availability of a credible alternative that fully embodies our + principles. + +- **We are NOT a Marketing Agency:** We do not engage in hype cycles or promote short- + term price action. Our communications are grounded in technical reality, in our + long-term mission and mandate, and in having fun on the Internet. + +- **We are NOT the Boss:** We cannot force hard forks or protocol changes. We are + opinionated only so as to advocate and propose what’s best for the mission. + +- **We are NOT a Government or Regulatory Body:** We do not act as a governing body + for ecosystem participants. + +- **We are NOT a Casino:** We do not encourage people to take life-changing, and + possibly life-wrecking, amounts of risk by going into personal debt hyper- + gambling. Ethereum has the potential to be a foundation for a secure and free + life; debt promotes the opposite. + +- **We are NOT Opportunists:** We do not actively assist in adoption of Ethereum in + ways that compromise trustlessness. We recognize that such adoption may occur, + but we apply our expertise in the trust-minimizing end of the spectrum in any + category we engage with. + +### Tradeoff Considerations {#tradeoff-considerations} + +**The world Ethereum must function in is not yet CROPS-native.** + +Today, most use of Ethereum flows through partially centralized surfaces: +wallets, RPC providers, relays to the MEV-industrial complex, app stores, +exchanges, institutions, and the social defaults that surround them. + +As Ethereum’s growing roots and branches come into contact with centralized +infrastructure at ever-greater scales, we will face these same dynamics +repeatedly. + +**We will have to choose, tomorrow as today, whether to take an incrementalist +approach or a nativist approach to growing Ethereum and advancing CROPS +adoption.** + +In truth, these are two distinct strands of work: the incrementalist approach +accelerates CROPS by demonstrating to those who are at or prioritize scale that +CROPS increases value; the other directly grows and distributes CROPS, and +develops and demonstrates further best practices for doing so. + +Our priority, and the default path for decisions, in line with our mandate and +the Only-EF Rule, is the CROPS-native approach. **CROPS-adherence is a compounding +force:** it produces usable self-sovereignty tools and escape hatches, and sets +durable precedents others can later follow. We value usability and performance +improvements that make sovereignty easier to choose, as long as they do not +introduce new points of leverage over a user or create dependencies. + +**Adoption can be earned over time, but principled ground once ceded is far harder +to regain.** + +We leave space within the Foundation for the incrementalist approach only in +tightly bounded circumstances: as a tactical intervention when it durably +reduces central control, does not result in deeper entrenchment than what it +supersedes, and accelerates the availability of a credible alternative that +fully embodies our principles. + +Our work must not introduce new chokepoints or entrench existing ones. It must +not expand or normalize reliance on added trust assumptions, and it must not +require constant Foundation presence to ensure alignment with our principles. + +We are skeptical of walled garden projects but we may consider engaging with +projects that advance or innovate access to self-sovereignty for end users, and +that preserve a path for users to default to full self-sovereign control of +their identity and assets. + +Work that is more incrementalist may well be valuable for Ethereum’s success and +growth. There may always be those who want to build walled gardens on the World +Computer. But the natural home of such work is outside the Foundation. This +Mandate does not preclude working with them, but we must do so in a principled +way to promote and secure the self-sovereignty of end users. The underlying goal +of our participation should be to engage with our resources and CROPS expertise +in order to help make the CROPS properties of such external work stronger. + +**The guiding question is: does this make Ethereum and its users less susceptible +to capture over time, or does it normalize capture in exchange for reach?** + +**We must also always consider that doing nothing may be the best course of +action, and that our energies are better spent elsewhere. Sometimes work in a +given area cannot be one of our priorities.** + +--- + +**When we encounter adversarial situations, whether within Ethereum or beyond it, +we focus on creating structural improvement: building open source tools for +self-sovereignty and sovereignty-preserving coordination, with de-totalization +as a matter of principle, rather than acting on opinions about particular +conflicts.** + +As individuals, we may hold diverse views shaped by the moment. As the +Foundation, we believe that free people, flourishing on the basis of self- +sovereignty, are best suited to building worlds worth living in and to carrying +freedom forward. We therefore focus on strategies that expand the conditions for +flourishing through self-sovereign computation, including in circumstances we +cannot yet foresee. + +Differential and open source promotion of “defense” is not a novel idea. The +Mohists authored and widely distributed manuals that helped all cities better +defend themselves, operating under the theory that shifting the balance from +offense to defense broadly reduces suffering. + +> **卷十四 Book 14** +> +> 52. 备城门 Fortification of the City Gate +> 53. 备高临 Defense against Attack from an Elevation +> 54. 备梯 Defense against Attack with Ladders +> 55. 备水 Preparation against Inundation +> 56. 备突 Preparation against a Sally +> 57. 备穴 Preparation against Tunneling +> 58. 备蛾傅 Defense against Ant-Rush +> +> **卷十五 Book 15** +> +> 68. 迎敌祠 The Sacrifice against the Coming of the Enemy +> 69. 旗帜 Flags and Pennants +> 70. 号令 Commands and Orders +> 71. 杂守 Miscellaneous Measures in Defenss + +One major difference between the Mohists and us is that they also directly +intervened in conflicts based on their own judgment about who was defending and +who was attacking. + +Our approach is closer to writing the manuals and making them available, and not +intervening in individual conflicts. + +We believe that de-totalization - building toward a world in which no +organization, system, or moral order has total dominance over any individual +life - is the most reliably good aim. + +Censorship resistance, security, and privacy stand in relation to de- +totalization much as city walls stood to pre-modern collective defense. Open +source ensures these protections are broadly distributed, iterable, and +customizable, rather than becoming the asymmetric advantage of any one group, +even a group for which any of us as individuals may hold particular sympathies. + +The team of today may not be the team of tomorrow. + +## VI. RESOLVING QUANDARIES {#vi-resolving-quandaries} + +Over the course of the next thousand years, we and our successors will face +countless challenges and be confronted with difficult choices whose specific +details we cannot anticipate. + +But human history teaches us that although no two rivers flow the same course, +the shapes of the valleys they carve are familiar, once you know how to look. + +That is to say, the structures of those challenges and the dynamics by which +they unfold are not so novel. + +While it would be impossible to describe every such obstacle, we illustrate +several timeless tensions we believe will forever exist around Ethereum until +the mission is complete. + +--- + +**1. When two technically credible paths compete, we pick the one that removes +points of leverage, not the one that can be shipped faster.** + +It is a common refrain from those who build centralized chokepoints into their +designs, such as entrenched trust architectures, that they have done so out of +necessity, and will be removed later when things are “more mature.” + +But human experience, both from software development and from political history, +tells us that such a path is fraught with danger, and we should view such +statements with suspicion. + +**The wiser course, therefore, is to prefer the option that is fully-CROPS from +the beginning even if it is technically or socially more difficult to get off +the ground and scale.** + +For example: a proposal offers “better protocol UX” or “better safety” for +transaction propagation via a curated private relay network with trusted +partners that results in the possibility for centralizing infrastructure such as +shared blacklists or whitelists, that will “be decentralized later when the +ecosystem and protocol are ready”; a second proposal keeps propagation +permissionless straight out of the box via open p2p tooling, with optional +private relays for exotic transactions, and with free routing around verifiable +failures. + +All else being equal, CROPS means we support the design where broadcast is +auditable and does not depend on a small set of intermediaries; private +propagation is opt-in and escapable; and where users can route around censorship +or extraction permissionlessly. + +**The lesson is that it is not sufficient that a solution simply works today; it +also needs to not become a chokepoint tomorrow.** + +**2. When designing or judging a proposal, we think through the higher-order +effects of implementation beyond the layer at hand, ensuring that the overall +impact advances self-sovereignty, and avoid capture points simply being +displaced beyond narrow focus or becoming an externality.** + +It is understandable to focus only on the properties of the solution at hand, +and to leave consideration of the other-order consequences of that solution to +others. This is not necessarily due to insufficient capacity, motivation, or +discipline. It is often due to simple familiarity. + +Nevertheless, it is our responsibility to ensure that we do think about the +overall consequences of any proposal beyond our own immediate frame of +reference. Indeed, thinking across layers may lead us to the elimination of +undesirable properties or structures at one level by creating a solution at +another. + +For example: work on the protocol’s capabilities, such as scale or speed, can be +done in myriad ways. Some may even be “CROPS-aligned” by the standard of using +the CROPS properties as a checklist. + +But we must remember our broader aim, promoting self-sovereignty. A proposal +that on narrow analysis satisfies the CROPS properties, yet introduces a user +chokepoint at another layer of interaction, whether that be forced +intermediation, extraction, or some other anti-sovereign pattern, is a proposal +that must be rejected. But a proposal that increases the capabilities of the +core protocol with the result of eliminating chokepoints at other layers should +be welcomed. + +It is a recurring temptation to treat CROPS properties in isolation, and to +consider any gaps acceptable as long as they can be compensated for elsewhere. +Whenever this temptation arises, we must scrutinize it carefully. Protocols may +remain formally un-degraded or “pristine” while in reality, positive or +essential capabilities such as scale, speed, UX accessibility, privacy, +extraction-resistance, or account functionality migrate into centralized, +intermediary-dependent, trust-dependent, permissioned, or opaque structures or +services. + +There are several scenarios that can illustrate the need for, and value of, +cross-layer thinking. + +First, **scale**. If the protocol does not support sufficient scale for a use case, +then those users often turn to extra-protocol mechanisms to process transactions +elsewhere and return on-chain proofs and commitments. In theory they may achieve +security sufficient for their purposes; in practice, they may be unknowingly +accepting deeper CROPS compromises than the situation warrants. + +Second, **account types**. If Ethereum supports only a narrow set of account types, +and lacks a general-purpose account model capable of supporting smart accounts, +then those use cases that require smart accounts can only be served through +intermediaries. We must recognize that this degrades their CROPS properties and +long-term liveness guarantees, even if a large number of competing +intermediaries theoretically exist. This prevents users from fully benefiting +from protocol-level features meant to improve transaction inclusion and access +guarantees. + +Third, **native privacy support at the protocol layer**. Protocol native privacy +greatly increases the anonymity set of the participants, reducing the risk of +privacy compromise. No construction layered on top could match the anonymity set +the protocol itself could provide. + +Fourth, **transaction protections at the protocol layer**. Transaction inclusion, +protection against adverse execution outcomes, and fair execution should be +achieved at the lowest layer of the stack consistent with safety. Implementation +at the protocol level would alleviate pressure for users to seek such guarantees +from intermediaries via centralized transaction pipelines, and therefore reduce +opportunities for systemic extraction. + +Fifth, **aggregation of cryptographic objects**. Intermediaries perform aggregation +functions for users because the individual submission on-chain of cryptographic +objects, for example, zero-knowledge proofs, is often cost prohibitive. The high +fixed costs of providing aggregation mean that the market for this service is +likely to be monopolistic, which is a centralized chokepoint. Therefore, if the +protocol were to support batched aggregation and efficient verification of such +objects, this centralization risk would be removed. + +--- + +In each of these cases, we judge the complexity and centralization-pressure +risks of native scaling against off-chain scaling; native smart accounts against +intermediated smart account services; native privacy against application layer +privacy; native transaction protections against intermediated and likely +extractive transaction guarantee services; and native aggregation against +intermediated and likely monopolistic, aggregation intermediaries. + +We keep in mind the risks at other parts of the Ethereum stack when thinking of +improving performance and usability of the core Ethereum protocol, for example: +if scaling comes at the cost of verifiability; if inclusion guarantees come at +the cost of novel forms of coercion or extraction; or if slot time reduction +comes at the cost of increasing pressures for geographic and economic +centralization. + +We also remember that protocol complexity is itself a technical risk: it expands +the bug surface area and reduces the viability of new independent protocol +implementations. However, we also recognize the upside: work on performance and +usability may be empowering where it removes the need for entire classes of +intermediaries above the protocol, or at least creates a credible and accessible +path around them. + +Striking the wrong balance across layers may be very costly. The downsides to +making mistakes due to complexity or risk at the protocol layer are often going +to be greater than downsides at the application layer, where users can +individually opt in or out, or collectively work to upgrade without changes to +the protocol. + +For example: if we add an aggregation scheme to Ethereum, but no one uses it - +not even power users who deeply need CROPS properties - then we have added +hundreds of lines of protocol code that create permanent ongoing risk without +much benefit. + +**We therefore hold protocol improvements that bear any risk at all to the +protocol’s CROPS properties to a much higher bar, evaluating them with greater +caution and care to avoid compromise at such a fundamental part of the Ethereum +stack.** + +**3. When considering adversarial user environments, we default to empowering user +agency, not to solutions that weaken user agency.** + +Safety is an important problem in our time, and “attacks on the mind” must be +taken as seriously as attacks that target technical properties or community +dynamics. + +However, we aim for defenses that are user-empowering and user-controlled. We do +not support high priests dictating or installing restrictions on user agency +under their logic of user protection, especially if users never opted in or +can’t opt out. + +For example: in the name of safety in a hostile world, a wallet ships a “safe +mode” enabled by default that incorporates dark design patterns such as silently +blocking certain contracts, steering users toward preferred venues or +counterparties, and into using unmodifiable preinstalled whitelists; or that +ships an AI copilot that flags “risky” actions using an uninspectable +proprietary model and reports user actions back home silently. + +**CROPS pushes user-controlled defenses instead:** a choice of independent locally- +verifiable filters with transparent rules, multiple independently-built +community-created and propagated whitelists and blacklists with clear override +paths, and private-by-default tool use including any AI components. + +Our work in Ethereum is to prove that the most natural and right way to help +users defend themselves from threats they may not even understand is to expose +them to empowering defensive tools. We demonstrate our fundamental belief in +user-empowerment over paternalism by pioneering this approach. + +**The goal is not to sanitize the environment; it is to keep users sovereign +inside it.** + +**4. Where a use case important to our mandate involves some form of +intermediation, we work to ensure that barriers to entry are minimized and +market competitiveness is maximized for anyone who plays that role. At the same +time, we aim to eliminate the need for such intermediaries wherever possible, +and to ensure that a practical, fully disintermediated path exists wherever it +can.** + +There are already many places across the Ethereum protocol and application layer + +- block building, RPC servers, entities attesting to aspects of digital identity +- where intermediaries exist. This state of affairs carries serious risks: one + or more intermediaries may become dominant chokepoints, impose their special + interests, censor users, enforce arbitrary participation rules, or extract + value. + +We therefore work to eliminate the need for such intermediaries wherever +possible. Where they cannot yet be removed, we design protocols that reduce the +technical and economic pressures that drive them toward capture. + +**In particular, we ensure the presence of a “zero option”: for every affordance +that has an intermediated path, any intermediary-free path that is possible must +be built and must remain credible and accessible. This serves both as a present +exit for users who may already be exploited by intermediaries, and as a credible +constraint against the expansion of such abuse. We do not skip this step.** + +For example: consider an application where participation requires some form of +identity. This may be for sybil resistance or anti-denial-of-service +protections, an online forum meant to be writable only by members of a certain +community, or myriad other reasons. + +A naive approach would be to take the easiest available off-the-shelf form of +“official” identity - government, biometric or corpoid - wrap it in a zero- +knowledge proof, and declare the result CROPS-friendly. + +But we must do better. We begin by examining the underlying need of the +application and ask exactly what aspect of identity or information disclosure is +actually required. Often, the requirement is not identity in full, but some +narrower property that identity also fulfills. + +If the use case needs only sybil resistance or only a way to make abuse +expensive, the system should provide a narrower alternative than providing +identity itself. Users who hold some quantity of ETH, for example, could provide +a zero-knowledge proof of ownership of it, or post a zero-knowledge security +deposit, in lieu of dependence on identity. + +Where identity attestations are genuinely required, our principles lead us to +design the system so that intermediaries are bounded and replaceable rather than +entrenched. The identity proof mechanism should be fully privacy-preserving in +all cases, with no backdoors. + +Once credentials have been issued, proof generation and verification should be +as local, verifiable, and non-custodial as possible, so that ongoing +participation does not depend on continued deference to a privileged +intermediary and cannot be revoked arbitrarily. + +We should also ensure that multiple fit-for-purpose sources of ground truth for +identity exist and can be used inside real-world applications that rely on the +system. The software stack should make it easy for implementations to integrate +multiple independent attestation sources, and should make this plurality the +default path. It should support combination approaches, allowing multiple weaker +signals - such as social-graph attestations - and not just single stronger +attestations, such as a signature from an official entity. + +Designing such a chokepoint-minimized system is inherently harder than the naive +approach. For that reason, and in accordance with the Only-EF rule, it is +exactly the kind of work we consider taking on where it serves our mandate. + +**The north star is disintermediation. Where intermediation can be eliminated, we +prefer to eliminate it. Where it is unavoidable, we work to minimize the risk of +capture by keeping intermediary roles open, plural, bounded, and verifiable. If +an intermediary-free design becomes possible, we ensure that it is credible and +accessible, so that intermediaries are ultimately optional rather than +entrenched.** + +**5. When deciding which teams to back, we look past short-term output and social +cues, and instead judge patterns of choices and revealed preferences.** + +It is often the case that we are presented with ideas wrapped in the language of +CROPS; of self-sovereignty; of freedom - yet upon closer inspection there is +less than meets the eye; the thin veneer of purported principles disintegrates +upon examination. This is not always disingenuous - indeed, many such ideas are +proposed by well-meaning, conscientious individuals, teams and projects, either +through genuine though misguided belief, or through lack of introspection or +interrogation. + +One way that this occurs is through thinking only about the “happy case,” where +all the variables play out as planned, but not about the “unhappy case” such as +where third-party dependencies (whether APIs, content delivery networks, or +otherwise) disappear or break - or worse, where the team itself disappears or is +hacked or an insider turns hostile. + +Another way is through the echo chamber effect, or in other words, cascading +social proof. In what is currently a small domain, groups of well-meaning people +commonly wish to be supportive, especially to their friends. Ideas form and are +shared and discussed; precisely because we operate in a space that has an +affinity for disintermediation, the speed at which ideas circulate often reaches +escape velocity, if not virality. Further, if amplified ideas attract social +proof and incentives - whether credit or reward - and are presented publicly +before they have been suitably interrogated or examined critically, then post +hoc questioning may become costly and face resistance. + +For example: two teams submit proposals for improving UX in some complicated +scenarios that involve multiple tokens and asynchronous communication. At first +glance, both look “CROPS-aligned:” open specification, progressive +decentralization roadmap, user-first UX. + +On review, the first team is socially polished, using the right language of +CROPS and armed with peer endorsement and resources, but the design keeps a +“secret-sauce” intermediary layer closed, bootstraps with a small whitelisted +provider set, and uses soft-defaults to steer flow through preferred paths. + +The other team has no social presence, minimal backing and finds it difficult to +communicate their vision, but implements an open market for intermediaries (eg. +using staking) without a whitelist, and treats them as a temporary artifact with +a credible path to elimination via user-driven routes and on-chain guarantees. +They publish early research and threat models, ship legible specs and references +and invite critique, and challenge unaffiliated teams to co-build so the default +outcome is shared infrastructure rather than a branded moat. + +**When choosing who to support, clarity of perception is paramount. It is +imperative to employ discernment and good judgment: not to anchor on polish, +credentials, or sympathetic signals of alignment, especially when social proof +arrives before due diligence.** Instead, we must examine what a project optimizes +for in practice - the tradeoffs it repeatedly chooses, technically and socially. + +Despite CROPS language, if on closer inspection work introduces privileged +positions - such as closed components, whitelists, soft-default routing, +discretionary upgrade ability, or dependency-heavy integrations - it is right to +be skeptical. + +Likewise, if a team continually selects for control or value over +decentralization, or if their partners and endorsers have a tradition of anti- +self-sovereign choices, it is right to be wary. + +**Our technical and social principles lead us to ask whether the default path +removes leverage over time or concentrates it in a silo, and whether the signals +of alignment are matched by CROPS-consistent action under scrutiny.** + +**We do not require first versions to be complete; they only need to stay live. +Open source building means a strong design path can be improved or finished by +subsequent teams. We appreciate teams that publish early, build openly, and +invite critique, so unaffiliated builders can pick up unfinished work without +having to ask.** + +## VII. THE FUTURE {#vii-the-future} + +For a long time, people have been pushed to believe that we only have two bad +choices. + +One is to accept that the name of the game is to obtain and maintain advantage; +and so to accept rule from the top, by those who already hold power: macro- +sovereigns like states, empires, corporate oligarchies, eschatological missions, +and grand ideologies that dictate how people live, decide who gets to act +freely, and who must comply, regardless of their subjects’ wishes. + +The other is to respond to that game without a principled aim: to burn it all +down, to retreat into mockery or withdrawal; or to defect to one or another +macro-sovereign, not because they are better, but simply because it is +opportune. + +But there are those who abjure this belief: it does not have to be this way. + +**Ethereum rejects the idea that there is no alternative.** + +Ethereum is not a weapon for either side of this conflict, and its stewards are +not a partisan faction within it. Ethereum is a tool that countless people - +individuals, families, and communities - are independently using to build +resilient sanctuaries from this contest of power: shelters from ideological +psychodrama, where anyone capable of taking refuge can live neither oppressed +nor oppressing, and where they can be left to their pursuits of happiness. + +And we, as Ethereum’s stewards, carry an additional responsibility: to keep +Ethereum usable for this purpose, and to keep the path open for users to create +and join sanctuaries that protect their freedoms and empower them to live the +lives they imagine for themselves. + +These sanctuaries are enabled in part by technology - decentralized, +permissionless, auditable, secure, and privacy-preserving machinery - and in +part by cultural and social aesthetics, which we bring to them as sensible and +considerate people, and which our technologies help defend. + +Our participation is in both the technology and the aesthetics: we build +infrastructure that secures forkable, self-sovereign computation from the ground +up; then, on top of this, we may experiment with novel coordination systems +underpinned by the sovereign freedoms to express and to exit. + +**Ethereum’s front in this sanctuary work is the front that defends permissionless +computation and communication with as much privacy and end-user agency as is +technologically viable.** + +Our closest collaborators include those working directly on privacy, +verifiability, and programmable cryptography. In the middle distance are our +neighbors working on open silicon, alternative networks and allied efforts. And +on the horizon are our friends working for clean air, and for regenerative and +sustainable habitats and permaculture; for freedom of speech and expression, and +the freedom to associate and dissociate voluntarily; for forkable technology +transfer; free open source collaboration in science, software, hardware, health, +and elsewhere, and a thousand other known and unknown things we trust them to +build without asking first. + +Ethereum is descended from a storied lineage of preservation instinct, prosocial +impulse, and principled predisposition. This is why it both has natural allies +and is an intrinsic building block for fellow travelers far beyond what we call +today, “crypto” or “web3.” + +**Alternatives exist. Trust hope, embrace resilience.** + +## VIII. CLOSING {#viii-closing} + +Our work is not about capturing markets, corporates, or states, nor about +helping them extract or capture. + +We are here to uncapture the individual, and to entrench their freedoms of +association. + +We are here to provide the infrastructure that enables a voice for those forms +of cooperation, organization, and community that go unrecognized within existing +hierarchies and systems. + +We provide the tools and the digital space needed for this civilization-scale +project, one that is open to anyone willing to claim self-sovereignty with their +own hands, that is available to everyone, especially those with nothing to lose +but their barbed wire fences. + +Ethereum is so other people can’t rug you; society can’t rug you; your +government can’t rug you; another government can’t rug you; corporations can’t +rug you; institutions can’t rug you; AI can’t rug you; mountain men can’t rug +you; your family can’t rug you; and so you don’t accidentally rug yourself +either. + +The Foundation exists to prevent Ethereum - more accurately, the promise of +Ethereum - from being rugged; to prevent Ethereum rugging those who are relying +on it to build their own sanctuaries; to make sure that it embodies the shared +principles from which Ethereum descends, upholding and advancing them rather +than letting them down. We have been entrusted with the torch of liberty and we +must keep it burning bright until the time comes to pass it on as it was passed +to us. + +Ethereum is for far more than crypto. The World Computer must rise and take its +rightful place as a shining star in the constellation of technologies that +underpin human freedom and flourishing. A lot more than crypto is counting on us +to steward Ethereum with skillful intent and discernment. + +For we are building nothing less than the machinery of freedom - not just for +today, but for the next thousand years. + +Our goal is to ensure the garden we’ve grown doesn’t just stay alive but +flourishes, the commons it creates remain open and infinitely spacious, and the +tools of sovereignty that are built remain available to all who would grasp +them, to all who would log on and win, forever. + +**There will be times when the work will be thankless; the journey will be +arduous; the path will be lonely. But every road to the stars first passes +through darkness.** + +_E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle._ From 26505fe1ee4749c2c0e55945823432a0e8b63db2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: wackerow <54227730+wackerow@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 09:30:38 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] feat: update intro copy Co-Authored-By: mnelsonBT <74370515+mnelsonBT@users.noreply.github.com> --- public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md b/public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md index 4019055e450..0494cbb736e 100644 --- a/public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md +++ b/public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md @@ -8,8 +8,9 @@ lang: en # The Ethereum Foundation Mandate {#mandate} -- [Graphical PDF version](https://ethereum.foundation/ef-mandate.pdf) -- [Canonically signed onchain source (via Blockscout explorer)](https://eth.blockscout.com/tx/0x5dd574df963a1df1f064791e0f6ff41ec972cdbba12293b7e1ece582052ba855) - Select "View details", under _Raw input_ selecting _UTF-8_ +This mandate was originally published by the Ethereum Foundation on 13-March-2026. Read the [original mandate here](https://ethereum.foundation/ef-mandate.pdf) in its fully-designed format. + +This document was placed onchain and signed by the Foundation, [visible on the Blockscout block explorer](https://eth.blockscout.com/tx/0x5dd574df963a1df1f064791e0f6ff41ec972cdbba12293b7e1ece582052ba855) (select "View details", under _Raw input_ with _UTF-8_). ## I. ETHEREUM {#i-ethereum} From 507c0e45620cbba4088fcb2b9a1a7a2b2eccaa5b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: wackerow <54227730+wackerow@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 09:32:03 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] patch: extract cta link below text --- public/content/foundation/index.md | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/public/content/foundation/index.md b/public/content/foundation/index.md index 7580214935b..73a03c6711a 100644 --- a/public/content/foundation/index.md +++ b/public/content/foundation/index.md @@ -15,7 +15,9 @@ The EF is not a company, or even a traditional non-profit. It does not control o ## EF Mandate {#ef-mandate} -The [EF Mandate](/foundation/mandate/) defines the Foundation's purpose, principles, and commitments to the Ethereum ecosystem. Published onchain, it enshrines the EF's dedication to **censorship resistance, open source, privacy, and security (CROPS)** as non-negotiable priorities. +The EF Mandate defines the Foundation's purpose, principles, and commitments to the Ethereum ecosystem. Published onchain, it enshrines the EF's dedication to **censorship resistance, open source, privacy, and security (CROPS)** as non-negotiable priorities. + +[Read the Ethereum Foundation Mandate](/foundation/mandate/) ## What the EF does {#what-the-ef-does} From 0bf34c14a88f00d71969d04ac0a226f4ab9734fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: wackerow <54227730+wackerow@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 10:29:32 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] feat: update meta description --- public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md b/public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md index 0494cbb736e..e91b5fce96c 100644 --- a/public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md +++ b/public/content/foundation/mandate/index.md @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ --- title: Ethereum Foundation Mandate -description: The Ethereum Foundation Mandate in text form +description: Explore the official Ethereum Foundation Mandate, defining the Foundation's purpose, principles, and commitments to the Ethereum ecosystem. hideEditButton: true sidebarDepth: 1 lang: en