At a Glance
- Vitalik Buterin says Bitcoin maximalists were largely correct about digital sovereignty.
- He warns that corporate-controlled systems are quietly stripping users of privacy and autonomy.
- Why it matters: The comments signal a major shift in how crypto leaders view the fight for user control online.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has conceded that early Bitcoin supporters were largely right about the importance of digital sovereignty. Speaking on January 10, he argued that today’s internet has drifted toward corporate-controlled systems that quietly weaken user power.
Sovereignty Beyond Government Control
Buterin framed sovereignty as more than resistance to governments. Instead, he described it as a fight to protect privacy, attention, and autonomy from profit-driven online platforms. His remarks came in response to a January 1 post by X user Tom Kruise, who predicted that the internet would split into three parts:
- An “open web”
- A heavily controlled “fortress web”
- A smaller, encrypted “sovereign web” built on trust
Buterin said he agreed with roughly 60% of that outlook. He highlighted what he called a long-overlooked divide between user-controlled systems and what he labeled “corposlop.”
The Rise of “Corposlop”
Buterin described corposlop as a mix of corporate power, polished branding, and behavior that quietly works against users. Examples included:
- Attention-grabbing social feeds
- Large-scale data harvesting
- Closed platforms that block links to rivals
- Repetitive, risk-averse media output
According to him, while these systems appear helpful on the surface, they are slowly stripping users of choice.
The Ethereum developer said early Bitcoin supporters sensed this risk years ago. Their resistance to ICOs, alternative tokens, and complex applications was rooted in keeping Bitcoin independent rather than wrapped in corporate incentives.
Where Bitcoin Maxis Went Wrong
However, Buterin argued that where Bitcoin maximalists went wrong was relying on heavy limits or state pressure instead of tools that expand user freedom.
The stance fits with Buterin’s recent criticism of major platforms. In December last year, he warned that X had turned into a magnet for hostility and algorithm-driven outrage. A month before that, he raised alarms about the social platform’s country-label feature, saying even small location leaks could harm vulnerable users.
Building the Sovereign Web
Looking ahead, Buterin outlined what he believes a user-first internet should prioritize:
- Local-first apps that limit data sharing
- Social platforms that give people direct control over what they see
- Financial tools that avoid pushing extreme risk-taking
- Open, privacy-focused AI systems that support human work instead of replacing it
Zac Williamson, founder of privacy-focused blockchain Aztec, echoed those views in earlier posts. He argued that the attention economy has weakened shared understanding and turned users into products. While Williamson warned that changing incentives will involve conflict and trade-offs, he agreed that cryptography and decentralized systems offer a path forward.
Community Skepticism
Some community voices remain cautious. Mark Paul wrote that crypto began as an alternative to corporate-heavy tech but has often mirrored it, though he suggested the sector may still outgrow that phase.
For Buterin, the challenge now is cultural as much as technical. He emphasized building tools that respect privacy, resist manipulation, and give people room to think and act on their own terms. His closing message was simple: reject systems that drain agency, and commit to software that puts users back in control.
Key Takeaways
- Vitalik Buterin now agrees Bitcoin maximalists were largely correct about protecting user sovereignty
- He warns corporate platforms are quietly stripping privacy and autonomy through polished but harmful systems
- The path forward requires tools that expand freedom rather than impose heavy restrictions
- Building a sovereign web means prioritizing user control over data, attention, and financial choices
