How should the blockchain evolve? Recently, this question has become popular again.

In simple terms, Vitalik's recent core view is: Ethereum should not always rely on developers for maintenance, but should evolve into a true infrastructure—like TCP/IP—once finalized, it can run on its own.

Behind this lies a deeper philosophical question: Are public chains meant to be "living protocols" that continuously iterate and innovate, or should they pursue stability and autonomy as "digital infrastructure"?

Think about it: what was the original value proposition of blockchain? It was to enable trustless strangers to collaborate securely through cryptography and consensus mechanisms. But in reality? Most smart contract platforms fall into a strange cycle—each major protocol upgrade requires proposals from the core development team, followed by community voting. This essentially reintroduces "humans" as a trust node within the tech stack, which somewhat deviates from the original intent.

Vitalik's idea of "trustless infrastructure" is fundamentally about pushing Ethereum toward a "final" state. That is, achieving a level of stability and security at the protocol layer high enough so that applications built on top can operate based on a set of unchanging rules. Just like the underlying protocols of the internet, we don't have to worry about them suddenly changing.

This is not just a technical route issue; it is also a redefinition of the fundamental value basis of the entire public chain track.