Ethereum Foundation, Vitalik Buterin sued over mandate dispute

On Nov. 4, Kayleen Fulton filed a Colorado complaint alleging that the Ethereum Foundation wrongfully fired her after she helped organize a 53-signature letter challenging conditions in its employee mandate. She names the Foundation, its Singapore affiliate, executive Bastian Aue and Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin as defendants.

Fulton, a former employee known as “Nixo,” alleges that her April 6 dismissal followed her effort to support the Foundation’s direction while objecting to parts of the “EF Mandate,” which set out an updated mission and principles. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and lost pay.

It also alleges disability discrimination and interference with medical leave rights. Fulton disclosed a cancer diagnosis to the Foundation around the time of her dismissal. Those claims remain unresolved in court. The Block did not receive a reply from Fulton or the Foundation before publication.

What did the mandate require?

The EF Mandate was published on March 13. It codified Ethereum’s core “CROPS” principles and outlined the Foundation’s role in upholding them:

• Censorship resistance
• Open source
• Privacy
• Security

The controversy centers on a section called the “Source Seppuku License.” It said employees would “take his or her own life with a sword” for failing to “uphold its solemn promise to Ethereum.”

According to the complaint, employees could affirm the mandate’s direction or leave. The filing acknowledges Aue said the seppuku reference was “not meant to be taken literally.” He later clarified that the commitment had “nothing to do with literal seppuku.”

How did employees push back?

Fulton and colleague Trent Van Epps organized a letter endorsing the Foundation’s direction while objecting to some conditions. The letter ultimately drew 53 signatures. The complaint alleges that this pushback led the Foundation to terminate Fulton and Van Epps unlawfully.

The case concerns employment governance rather than Ethereum’s protocol or the CROPS principles themselves. The dispute focuses on the mandate’s employment terms, management’s response to dissent and the circumstances of Fulton’s dismissal.

Fulton said she received an offer of one year’s salary under a separation agreement. She alleges that she signed the release under duress, received no payments and later rescinded it.

What does the recording show?

On May 1, Fulton partially recorded a conversation with Buterin in Norway. The complaint does not state whether Buterin knew of or consented to the recording. It notes that one-party consent to recording is legal in Norway.

During the conversation, Buterin said that “if you reward making a stink with outcomes,” employees could use that as a way to influence the Foundation. The exchange places the Foundation’s internal debate over dissent at the center of the dispute. It also preserves a recorded conversation between its co-founder and a former employee who helped organize the challenge.

What does this change for the Ethereum Foundation?

The practical change is a Colorado employment case, not an immediate change to Ethereum’s code or the Foundation’s stated principles. The defendants face allegations of retaliation, disability discrimination, interference with medical leave rights and a separation agreement signed under alleged duress.

No court has yet tested the allegations, and Fulton has not specified a dollar amount for damages or lost pay. The filing puts the Foundation’s employee-commitment process under scrutiny. It also asks a court to examine management’s handling of dissent and the release of a departing employee.

For now, the case turns on employment process, management communication and the disputed release, rather than any change to Ethereum’s protocol. The next milestone is the defendants’ formal response and any deadline the Colorado court sets. No hearing, settlement or payment date has been disclosed. Until adjudication or settlement, the public record establishes allegations, not a finding that the Foundation, Aue or Buterin violated Fulton’s rights.