So we’ve made it. Or have we?

For the first time in human history, a technology has run non-stop for an entire decade. No resets. No scheduled maintenance. No single stall in 315,360,000 seconds of operation. That technology wasn’t a nuclear power plant. It wasn’t the banking system. It wasn’t Bitcoin either.

It was Ethereum.

Once again, Ethereum has redefined what’s possible.

Of course, one can argue it’s easier to ensure uptime if "uptime" merely means at least one computer in the entire network is responsive, processing transactions, and pushing blocks - and yes, some network nodes did go down, and some RPCs failed. But that’s precisely the point. Ethereum is not about a single machine or a flawless server - it’s a decentralized blueprint for resilience. A system designed so that no single point of failure brings it down. A system kept alive not only as a piece of technology but as the work of thousands of developers and a community of operators. As the saying goes: If you want to go far, go together.

Some might counter: the internet itself has never had a total, global outage. In this sense, we can view Ethereum - this "world computer" - in the same light as the internet itself. And that’s not bad. That’s not bad at all.

But such achievements come with a question: Did we truly deserve it? (sorry to pull a classic V)

Beyond Technology: The Risks Ahead

With crypto gaining mainstream adoption - by institutions, even governments - we risk losing sight of our real enemy. At Devcon last year, I ended my presentation with a hopeful slide: “Now we won!” After a decade of being ignored, ridiculed, and fought, I thought the time of victory had arrived.

In some sense, it had. But watching premature victory dances online, I’ve never been more uneasy. Success can be captured, diluted, or repurposed before we’ve even crossed the finish line.

Is a pro-crypto U.S. administration a real win? In the short term, sure, our bags are pumping. But governments change on the wind. Today’s "ally" can quickly become tomorrow’s captor - eager to bend crypto’s ethos into something controllable. If you, like me, didn’t join this movement just to depend on the "current guy" being the right guy, then you should remain cautious.

So who is our enemy now, when former opponents march at our side waving the same flags?

The Disappearing Enemy

Most of Ethereum’s community doesn’t think in terms of war, let alone hostility. And yet, a common enemy is often what forges unity.

Bitcoin’s story shows this clearly. Its birth in 2008 was triggered by the bailout of banks: a rotting financial system exposed for all to see. The enemy was obvious - corrupt governments, banksters, cronyism. But look at today. Bitcoin maxis celebrate dictators because they declare Bitcoin legal tender. Irony at its peak.

As Ethereum pushes technological boundaries, crypto itself begins to lose its enemy. Complacency creeps in. Our focus drifts. And while everything seems positive, corporate interests and regulators quietly circle, ready to create chokepoints - hidden single points of failure that could undo decentralization through small compromises.

History tells this story often. Ancient civilizations thrived while facing external threats, but once the threat vanished, they turned inward. And collapse often followed.

The Bitcoin community, in fact, is already there. Banks and governments are no longer seen as the enemy; rival coins and blockchains are. "Bitcoin isn’t crypto," many proudly declare, narrowing Satoshi’s invention into tribal rivalry. Now Bitcoin’s fiercest opponent isn’t legacy finance - it’s competing technology. That mistake must not be repeated.

The Real Enemy

Bitcoin’s enemy isn’t Ethereum. Ethereum’s enemy isn’t Solana.

Our greatest threat is stagnation and legacy thinking. Systems that resist change. Mindsets that hoard power. The subtle gatekeeping where access depends not on merit, but on the already powerful. The temptation to trade decentralization for convenience.

If we allow these compromises to spread, we don’t build resilient, censorship-resistant systems. We build mimicries of decentralization: fragile hype machines destined to collapse.

Technology must evolve, just as human knowledge evolves - not to become legacy, but to remain relevant. And Ethereum has proven, time and again, to be that evolving force.

Building for Eternity

Ten years may seem like a trivial metric against eternity. But it matters because of the Lindy effect - it’s a psychological milestone, proof of resilience.

I believe that in 50 years, Ethereum will still be alive - though everything beneath it will have changed. Clients will be written in programming languages we haven’t invented yet. They’ll run on chips we’ve never seen. Consensus will be secured by mechanisms yet to be designed.

Ethereum will thrive. Even as our lives sunset, it will remain. That is why we keep building on it - not for the next hype cycle, but to last.

And in 100 years? I’ll be long gone. So wake me up in 2075 to prove me wrong.

Cheers to the next fifty years

- Josef