EF Mandate explained

The "EF Mandate", published by the Ethereum Foundation on March 13, 2026, is a document in which the Foundation states why it exists, what it does, and what it does not do. The Foundation blog introduced it as a constitution, a declaration and an operating guideline, and the full text was recorded onchain. The document says the Foundation is a steward rather than the owner of Ethereum and treats a decline in its own influence as success, so it reads as a reference point for judging the Foundation's future decisions.

Original · Foundation blog · published 2026-03-13

Key ideas

• A steward, not an owner: The Foundation defines itself as neither the parent, owner nor ruler of Ethereum, but as a steward that has cared for the project since the beginning. It says the privilege of stewarding Ethereum must not be monopolized and should be shared with other participants.
• CROPS is non-negotiable: It treats CROPS, which bundles four properties (censorship resistance, open source and free, privacy, and security), as the premise of every development priority. Its position is that none of the four can be dropped or traded for another goal.
• The walkaway test: The final goal is a state in which the protocol and core applications keep running and evolving even if the Foundation and today's core developers disappear tomorrow.
• Success is becoming unnecessary: It sees the "subtraction" of gradually reducing the Foundation's relative influence as a process of maturity, not a retreat. The consistent stance of the document is that the more Ethereum succeeds, the smaller the Foundation becomes.
• Only what only the Foundation can do: The Foundation focuses on core tasks that no one else takes on, and hands them over once the community can take them on. It also includes in its criteria that doing nothing may be the best course.
• Distributing defensive tools, not intervening: It does not take sides in individual conflicts. Instead, it chooses to spread self-sovereignty tools that anyone can use as open source. The document compares this to the Mohists, who wrote books on how to defend a city and handed them out to every city.

I. Ethereum (ETHEREUM)

The document begins by saying Ethereum was born from a dream of freedom. It sees Ethereum's value in domains that need both self-sovereign computation, where users keep control of their own computation to the end, and the ability to cooperate at scale without harming others' sovereignty. The first application is money, and Ethereum aims to be humanity's common computing foundation, in other words a world computer, that anyone can keep using without trust or permission. The Foundation states that it exists to make Ethereum robust enough to hold this role.

• The concern that users must hold final decision-making power over data, assets, identity, agents, and even the right to exit a system
• If cooperation is not needed, a local app is enough, and if central power is acceptable, a centralized platform is enough. The domain that needs both is where Ethereum belongs.
• Money as the first application that demands both cooperation and self-sovereignty, and ether as both a store of value and money
• First promise: a common computing foundation (the world computer) that is trustless, permissionless, and durable
• Second promise: the free flourishing of self-sovereign cooperation infrastructure that does not infringe on individual freedom
• A definition of Ethereum as a liberating technology that frees people from attempts to impose an order with no alternative

II. The Foundation's role (OUR ROLE)

The Foundation introduces itself as Ethereum's first steward, while drawing a line that it is neither Ethereum itself nor its owner. It explains that its role is to coordinate people with the same purpose so they can work together, and to provide foundations and context, without creating a central bottleneck or a monoculture. The final goal is to pass the walkaway test, in which Ethereum keeps running even if the Foundation disappears, and the measure of performance is Ethereum's resilience, not profit or organizational growth. This section also contains the point that the document is above all a practical guide for Foundation members, and an admission that the Foundation has not always done well in the past.

• A self-image as a steward that has grown a software project that was once like a seed into an infinite garden where anyone can grow their own work
• A definition of its role as a coordinator and foundation provider, not a parent, owner or ruler
• A direction of seeking, as natural allies, those who practice the same principles in other fields
• Sets as its final goal the walkaway test, in which the system keeps working even if the Foundation and current core developers disappear
• An independent nonprofit that also refuses value flows justified by rewards or alignment, whose assets to protect are legitimacy and virtue
• The measure of success is how much it enables self-sovereignty and sovereignty-preserving cooperation, both with and without the Foundation

III. The Foundation's mission (OUR MANDATE)

The Foundation's mission has two branches. The first is to build and protect Ethereum as a decentralized, resilient, self-sovereign tool. For this, it treats CROPS, which bundles censorship resistance, open source and free, privacy, and security, as a premise that no priority can replace. The second is to provide self-sovereignty, in a guaranteed form and at the scale they want, to users who want it. The document adds that this mission is written with a thousand-year horizon, and that because principles tend to flow downhill like water, it starts from the highest standard.

• First basic principle: final decision-making power over identity, assets, actions, and agents belongs to the user
• Treats the four CROPS properties as one indivisible whole and applies them to all of the Foundation's own decisions as well
• Second basic principle: within limits that do not infringe on others' sovereignty, offer unstoppable self-sovereignty to those who want it, at the scale and in the form they want
• The view that self-sovereignty is layered across many levels: individuals, families, local communities, companies, nations, religions, and internet communities
• The distinction that Ethereum is permissionless, but the Foundation mainly works with those who share its vision
• A high starting point premised on a thousand-year view, and an appended "Source Seppuku License" stating that the Foundation will fall on its own sword if it breaks its principles

IV. Principles of action (PRINCIPLES FOR ACTION)

The mission stands on two pillars, technology and society, with four principles in each pillar. The technology pillar spells out the four CROPS properties one by one, and the society pillar covers the attitude with which the Foundation works and whom it partners with. The document insists that protocol work, community support and decision-making must all come from these two pillars, and that CROPS is not up for negotiation. At the end of the technology pillar it brings up the walkaway test again, and concludes that minimizing intermediaries and structural decentralization are the path to it.

• A structure of two pillars, technology and society, with four principles in each
• A requirement that all of the Foundation's work be grounded in the two pillars and be judged by that standard
• Technology principles: design without a kill switch, open work that can be forked, privacy as the default, and simplicity and minimal governance
• Society principles: principles over user numbers, the right timing over speed, collaborators who share the principles, and a view wider than crypto
• The judgment that a billion users inside a centralized silo is not success but a failure of the mission

V. How it works (CARRYING OUT THE WORK)

The Foundation's way of operating is summarized as subtraction for resilience. It holds that Ethereum is stronger the more it runs without the Foundation's guidance, and prefers work that makes the Foundation less necessary over time. It then lists nine things the Foundation does not do, and offers criteria for choosing between an incremental approach and a CROPS-native approach, given that CROPS is not yet the default. In confrontations, it says it chooses to build open-source defensive tools that anyone can use rather than to state opinions on specific conflicts.

• The Only-EF rule of focusing only on core tasks that no one else takes on, and the principle of handing work over once the community can take it on
• The subtraction principle that treats a reduction in the Foundation's relative influence as a sign of success, and an admission that it must learn from past failures to cultivate alternative stewards
• Nine limits: it is not a company, kingmaker, certification body, product studio, marketing agency, trading firm, government or regulator, casino, or opportunist
• The default path is the CROPS-native approach; the incremental approach is allowed only under strict conditions, such as continually reducing central control
• The core questions for judgment: does it become less vulnerable to capture over time, and does it normalize capture in exchange for gaining reach
• Presents de-totalization, which keeps any organization or moral order from governing the whole of an individual's life, as the surest line

VI. Resolving hard judgments (RESOLVING QUANDARIES)

The document holds that although details cannot be predicted over the next thousand years, the structure of conflict repeats, like the shape of a valley carved by a river. It therefore presents, with examples, five tensions around Ethereum that will continue until the mission ends. They are the choice between the path that can ship quickly and the path that removes points of concentrated influence, one layer versus the whole system, user protection versus user agency, intermediation versus disintermediation, and a polished team versus a team with substance. All five cases are tied together by the same standard: prefer what will not become a bottleneck tomorrow over what works today.

• Doubt the promise to "decentralize later" and prefer options that have CROPS from the start
• Cross-layer thinking: even if CROPS is kept at one layer, it must be rejected if it creates a bottleneck at another layer
• The judgment of whether to handle scalability, account types, privacy, transaction protection, and aggregation of cryptographic objects at the protocol level, with the caution that protocol complexity is itself a risk
• Defensive tools that users control, instead of a paternalism that judges on the user's behalf
• Always provide a path without an intermediary (a zero option) for every feature that has an intermediated path
• Judge which teams to support by their repeated choices, not by their words and reputation

VII. The future (THE FUTURE)

The document diagnoses that people have long been pushed to believe there are only two bad options. One is to accept rule by great sovereigns such as states, corporate oligarchies, or grand ideologies. The other is to smash everything without principle, turn cynical, or side with whoever is advantageous. Ethereum rejects the idea that there is no alternative, and says it is not a weapon for either side but a tool for people to step out of power struggles and build, for themselves, a refuge where they neither oppress nor are oppressed. The Foundation takes responsibility for keeping the path to that refuge open, and says the front line Ethereum holds is protecting permissionless computation and communication with maximal privacy and user agency.

• A rejection of the two bad options: accepting rule from above, or reacting without principle
• The position that Ethereum is no one's weapon in a power struggle, and neither is its steward a faction within it
• Technology and culture that make possible sanctuaries that individuals, families, and communities build for themselves
• The closest collaborators are researchers in privacy, verifiability, and programmable cryptography
• Concentric circles of alliance: open silicon and alternative networks at mid-range, and out to clean air, freedom of expression and association, and open science on the horizon

VIII. Closing words (CLOSING)

The document stresses again that the Foundation's job is neither to take over markets, companies or states nor to help them extract. Its purpose is to free individuals from capture, strengthen freedom of association, and provide infrastructure that gives a voice to forms of cooperation and community that existing hierarchies do not recognize. It describes Ethereum as a device that keeps you from being "rugged" by others, society, governments, companies and AI, and even by your own mistakes. It ends with a pledge not to let the torch of freedom go out until it is handed on to the next generation as it was received, and a declaration that it is building a machine of freedom for a thousand years.

• An identity as one that frees individuals from capture, not one that captures
• Infrastructure that gives a voice to forms of cooperation that existing hierarchies and systems do not recognize
• Ethereum defined as a tool that does not rug anyone, including itself
• The responsibility to guard the inherited torch of freedom until it is handed to the next generation
• The closing idea that even if there are lonely, unrewarded periods, the road to the stars passes through darkness; the last line is the closing verse of Dante's Divine Comedy, Inferno (presumed, no source is cited in the original)

Technical principles

• Censorship Resistance: No one should be able to exclude legitimate use selectively or break functionality. The system is designed to withstand external pressure such as law and social norms, without central intermediaries or kill switches.
• Open Source and Free, as in Freedom: Makes all work open, auditable and forkable, with no privileged code or hidden specifications, and requires supported projects to pledge not to close their licenses.
• Privacy: User data must not be exposed beyond what is necessary or against the user's interest, and what to disclose and to whom is chosen by the user on the basis of unconditional privacy.
• Security: A system must do exactly what it claims and no more. To that end, it requires simplicity, minimal governance, and even a user-side walkaway test.

Social principles

• Principled Alignment: Resilience that upholds principles takes priority over user counts or value optimization, and nothing that permits private capture is done.
• Discipline: Values technical rigor and proper timing, makes hard decisions on principle rather than under market pressure, and explains candidly when it was wrong.
• Right Association: Treats who one works with as a matter of principle, and prefers teams that share the principles and seek independence from the foundation over teams in crypto with different standards.
• Big Picture: Holds that Ethereum's promise holds only if it extends beyond any particular subculture or asset class, and accepts peers from outside crypto on principle alignment alone, not aesthetic homogeneity.

How hard calls get made

When two technically plausible paths compete, which one is chosen?

It chooses the one that removes points of concentrated influence, not the one that can ship faster. A design that defaults to permissionless p2p propagation from the start, rather than a private relay for trusted partners only, is given as an example.

How is a proposal viewed if it preserves CROPS at one layer but creates a bottleneck in another layer?

It weighs the impact on the whole system, rejects proposals that shift a bottleneck to another layer, and welcomes proposals that expand protocol features to remove bottlenecks at other layers. However, protocol changes are hard to reverse, so a much higher bar applies.

To protect users in a hostile environment, who should block what?

Instead of opaque 'safe modes' that are on by default or AI that reports on users in secret, it supports defensive tools with transparent rules that users can choose and turn off.

What is done when an intermediary sits in an important use case?

It lowers barriers to entry for intermediaries and widens competition, while always building a path that does not need an intermediary. For an app that needs identity verification, it first looks for a design that proves only the properties actually needed, rather than the easy approach of wrapping a government ID in a zero-knowledge proof.

What is used to judge which teams to support?

It looks at the tradeoffs a team repeatedly chooses and its actual design, rather than polished language, reputation, or peer endorsement. The first version need not be finished; it is enough that it is built in public and other teams can pick it up.

Glossary

• CROPS: An acronym of Censorship Resistance, Open Source and Free, Privacy, and Security, the core properties of Ethereum that the document treats as one indivisible whole.
• Walkaway test: A criterion asking whether the protocol and core applications keep working and evolving even after the foundation and all current core developers are gone.
• World Computer: Ethereum's self-definition as a shared computing foundation for humanity that anyone can keep using without trust or permission.
• Infinite Garden: The foundation's metaphor for Ethereum as an open commons where many participants grow their own projects.
• Only-EF Rule: An operating principle that the foundation steps in only on core tasks that other ecosystem actors cannot or will not take on.
• Zero option: A requirement that every feature with a path through an intermediary also be given a path that can be used without one.
• De-totalization: A vision of a world where no organization, system, or moral order can govern the whole of an individual's life; the document names it as its most certain goal.
• Chokepoint: Bottleneck points that a small number of actors can seize to enable censorship, extraction, and imposition of arbitrary rules, which the document as a whole seeks to eliminate.