Since Ethereum successfully transitioned to Proof of Stake (PoS) in 2022, it has achieved goals such as reducing energy consumption and improving performance, but it has quietly sacrificed one of the core values of its original vision: decentralization. Once hailed as the 'decentralized world computer', Ethereum now increasingly resembles a 'Silicon Valley on-chain' constrained by capital, technological oligarchs, and regulatory pressures.
1. 'Elite monopoly' brought by staking thresholds
The essence of PoS is 'capital voting'; the probability of a node obtaining block rights is directly tied to the amount of ETH it stakes. Although the 32 ETH threshold theoretically allows everyone to participate, in reality, the vast majority of retail investors cannot bear this cost and turn to liquid staking services such as Lido and Coinbase. This directly gives rise to a situation of super-validator oligopoly.
Currently, a single protocol, Lido, controls over 30% of staked ETH. A few large centralized platforms almost monopolize the validation nodes, which means that block rights, on-chain decision-making rights, and high-priority transaction rights (MEV) are gradually concentrated in the hands of a few.
2. Regulatory friendliness = anti-anonymity
The trend of 'compliance' on PoS chains is becoming more apparent. Major staking service providers are proactively screening validators, recording on-chain transactions, and limiting interactions with anonymous wallets to comply with regulations. The anonymity and censorship resistance that Ethereum once supported are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain under the PoS mechanism.
The arrest of Tornado Cash developers and the infiltration of the OFAC blacklist into ETH transaction processing are signs of the loss of decentralization. The compliance channels on PoS chains resemble a slow march towards 'on-chain KYC'.
3. Development power remains centralized
After transitioning to PoS, the frequency of protocol updates has significantly increased, but those who can truly influence the direction of Ethereum remain those few core developer organizations (like the Ethereum Foundation and Consensys). The impact of ordinary token holders, developers, and even stakers on Ethereum's future is minimal.
On-chain governance has not been implemented, and 'soft centralization' is intensifying. The PoS mechanism has not fundamentally broken the concentration of power; instead, it has formed an unshakeable technical-financial alliance between staked capital and code control.
4. The MEV ecosystem undermines user fairness
In the PoW era, miners compete based on computing power; in the PoS era, nodes rely on sorting transactions for arbitrage. The MEV (Maximum Extractable Value) ecosystem on Ethereum is thriving, but it is essentially an on-chain privilege mechanism, where ordinary users frequently experience arbitrage, being squeezed, and prioritized transactions in activities such as DeFi and NFT buys.
The ideal of decentralization is openness and fairness, while MEV represents programmed privilege, which directly contradicts this vision.
5. PoS is not the future, but a transition
PoS is not the ultimate solution for decentralization. It lowers the hardware threshold but raises the capital threshold; it reduces energy consumption but intensifies governance concentration. In an increasingly censorship-resistant, compliance-resistant, and anti-monopoly crypto world, PoS is exposing its deep structural flaws of centralization.
The future of truly decentralized blockchains may require breaking away from the opposition between PoS and PoW and exploring new directions such as AI participation, identity-free block production, and social consensus. Ethereum may have already stopped on the path of being 'the least like Web3'.
