Why is it so difficult for businesses to establish direct links with the Ethereum ecosystem?
The answer lies in the nature of Ethereum. Ethereum is decentralised, which is both its greatest strength... and its greatest challenge for businesses. Unlike a company like Apple, which has a sales force, marketing, a clear organisational chart, Ethereum operates as a public infrastructure, a protocol, a bit like the Internet.
There is no Ethereum sales department. There is no direct line to call to speak to an Ethereum representative. And that's normal: that's precisely what guarantees its neutrality. But for institutions, it makes getting in touch difficult, even confusing.
Some say the Ethereum Foundation should have played this role. But it's not that simple. The Foundation has faced intense regulatory pressure for years. It has had to be very careful not to act like a company, so as not to compromise the decentralised nature of the network. And it has done well: Ethereum has made it through this critical stage without becoming a regulatory target like other more centralised L1s.
What the other blockchains - Solana, Avalanche, Ripple - are doing today is a form of shortcut. Their foundation acts like a commercial enterprise, actively approaching customers. It's simpler in the short term, but it poses problems in the long term.
So the solution is not to centralise Ethereum, or turn the EF into a commercial enterprise. The solution is to have structures like ours, independent, aligned with Ethereum's principles, but capable of playing this role as a point of contact. This is exactly what Etherealize does: we are this interface that companies can call, this human voice that can accompany them.
>> Ethereum Foundation: An essential but contested organisation
Your structure was officially launched in January. What is the story behind Etherealize?
The story is both very personal and very revealing of the evolution of the ecosystem. I spent ten years working in the traditional financial markets, on Wall Street, at institutions such as Morgan Stanley, UBS, Deutsche Bank - two European banks - and Nomura. There I dealt with credit products: bonds, loans, CDSs (credit default swaps), etc. These are complex instruments, not very sexy, but they represent a huge part of the allocation of banks and asset managers. It's a much bigger market than equities. During this decade, I have built up a lot of relationships with buy-side and sell-side players, including in Europe.
But what struck me was the total lack of technological innovation in these markets. Everything is still managed in the old way, with settlement systems worthy of the Stone Age. While the products are sophisticated, the infrastructure remains incredibly obsolete. It was both frustrating and demotivating. When I left that world, I discovered Ethereum, rather late in the day - in 2020, 2021 - so I don't consider myself to be an 'OG' of the community. But as a former trader, it jumped out at me: these credit products need to live on a public, transparent, programmable blockchain. So I started working on the institutional adoption of Ethereum. I spent four years trying to bring Wall Street and Ethereum together, often behind the scenes, through a small crypto investment firm licensed to work with banks. But between 2021 and 2023, there was little interest: no regulatory framework, no incentives. Then in 2024, everything changed. The Ethereum ETF, BlackRock's announcements, political developments... Not only did institutions start to take an interest, they felt a real FOMO. The number of meetings increased and the discussions became serious.
That's when I said to myself: this informal work needs to become a structure in its own right. So we launched Etherealize with several co-founders, including Grant Hummer. We also received a signal of support from the Ethereum Foundation and from Vitalik Buterin himself. This was important, because the Foundation doesn't usually do business development. But they said to us: "Go ahead. Be this point of contact for institutions. Bring capital and assets to Ethereum." It wasn't massive financial support, but a clear signal of legitimacy. And for banks, legitimacy is key.
Since that launch, everything has accelerated. We've had a huge amount of traction, meetings, interest in asset tokenisation. Danny Ryan joined me as a co-founder, because we shared exactly the same vision: Ethereum has moved from the infrastructure-building phase to global adoption. We also brought on board Zach O'Brien, one of the best engineers in the ecosystem, and Grant is still here. In short, we have a solid team. All this responds to a real need in the market: today, blockchains need to sell their technology. It's no longer just a matter of technical development.
"You can't do institutional work without this political dimension" How would you define Etherealize's mission? Some people talk about a business development role, others about lobbying. What is your real role?
Our mission can be summed up in one sentence: to connect the institutional world to the Ethereum ecosystem. But in practical terms, this covers several complementary dimensions. Firstly, yes, we have a business development and marketing function, in the traditional sense of the term, but in the service of a public blockchain. Ethereum is currently the most neutral and robust platform for hosting high-value assets, but until now it has lacked an entity to actively promote it to institutional players. So our role is to embody this commercial front, to carry this message in a structured way.
But that's not enough. The second pillar is public policy work. The regulatory environment is changing very fast, and if you want to make the link with the institutions, you absolutely must have one foot in the discussions taking place in Washington. You can't just come in with a technology: you have to understand the legislative dynamics, the legal constraints, and if possible, contribute to them. You can't do institutional work without this political dimension.
And finally, there's a third axis, which is more product-based. Because when we go out into the field and talk to banks, we immediately identify very concrete obstacles. Problems with KYC, confidentiality, asset custody, and so on. Institutions are not going to be satisfied with a Metamask wallet to manage billions. So we need to build appropriate solutions and reduce friction. And to do that, we have a very strong in-house engineering team, notably with Danny Ryan and Zach O'Brien, which enables us to prototype or develop what's missing.
Who are your competitors at the moment? Are there any other structures fulfilling a similar role to yours?
That's a good question, but the answer isn't obvious, because our approach is quite novel. To my knowledge, there is no other structure that embodies this specific mission of representing Ethereum to financial institutions. That said, there are efforts that are very complementary.
For example, ConsenSys played a major role in the institutional adoption of Ethereum in 2017-2018. Today, they are still building great products, like Metamask or Linea, their rollup. We have an excellent relationship with Joe Lubin, who has done a lot for Ethereum, including funding a large part of the first wave of enterprise adoption out of his own pocket. And today, he supports us. He even told us: "Go ahead, take the lead on Wall Street". And that makes sense: sometimes you need a new face, a new discourse, to reactivate certain networks. I still have a lot of energy, I'm seen as an emerging player, which is sometimes more effective in opening doors.
We're also very close to the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance (EEA), of which we're a member. Their network of companies is impressive. In fact, their executive director, Redwan Meslem, is French. We also work with Paul Brody at EY (read his interview) . And of course, we're keeping in touch with the Ethereum Foundation, which has a complementary role to our own.
That said, if I had to name "competitors", it would be the other layer 1 blockchains instead. Because they're all going to be canvassing institutions. Solana, for example, has a foundation that goes out into the field, making appointments, pushing its solutions. So does Avalanche. Ripple even more so. And in a way, that makes sense: their foundations operate like centralised companies, they have products to sell. Ethereum, on the other hand, is a decentralised protocol. The Ethereum Foundation doesn't do business development. But that's also what justifies our existence: filling this void, without changing the nature of Ethereum.
>> ConsenSys: the plans of the Ethereum ecosystem giant
What do you think of the 2077 Collective, a community structure supposedly working on marketing Ethereum, which is currently causing quite a stir in the ecosystem ?
I don't have a clear-cut or definitive position on the subject, but I think it's a good thing overall. The Ethereum ecosystem clearly needed marketing initiatives. And that's exactly what 2077 is trying to do, with a more narrative, culture- and community-oriented approach. Emmanuel Alseika, who led the initiative, is a very intelligent person. He brought a different vision, trying to build an imaginary world around Ethereum, perhaps drawing on codes from pop culture, science fiction, etc.
I fully understand the interest in having more community-based, experimental initiatives. Does everything work? Of course not. Is it sometimes messy, or confusing? Yes, probably. But it's like in the world of start-ups: you need lots of attempts, lots of trials. Most of them will fail, but some initiatives will succeed in bringing people together and creating a new dynamic. And I think that 2077 Collective is one of those experiments that should be encouraged. It takes a lot of trial and error for an initiative to really take off. So, yes, I respect Emmanuel, I think he brings something new, even if our roadmap is different.
"Etherealize is a for-profit structure" Are you a for-profit structure, or more of a non-profit organisation?
No, Etherealize is a for-profit structure. It's a conscious choice, and I think it's important to make that clear. A large part of the Ethereum ecosystem has historically been supported by non-profit initiatives, with very altruistic models - which is admirable, but which doesn't always allow us to scale effectively. What we want to do is create a sustainable entity that can grow, hire, invest and develop in the same way as a technology start-up. To do that, we need to generate revenue.
Now, let's be clear: the purpose of our business development, marketing and political influence activities is not to generate revenue. These functions are necessary for the proper development of the Ethereum ecosystem, and we accept them as such. But it is precisely because we also have a product ambition that we will be able to generate revenue. Once we have identified, with the institutions, concrete needs that are not being met, we will develop appropriate solutions, and then there will be a logic of monetisation. The idea is to be present where there is value to be created, particularly in what we call the 'app layer'. And this model is totally compatible with the Ethereum philosophy.
How did you finance your beginnings?
We started with a grant from the Ethereum Foundation. It wasn't a huge sum, but it was enough to lay the first foundations. The most important thing was the signal it sent out. The Ethereum Foundation doesn't often support this type of initiative, even less so in the area of business development. The fact that they gave us this support, however modest, showed recognition of the legitimacy and importance of our mission.
But to build Etherealize to the scale we want, this grant wasn't enough. That's why we're now in the process of structuring a fundraising drive with private players, with a view to long-term development. The support of the Ethereum community has also been crucial, in particular in building our reputation, getting relays and expanding our network. Once again, it's not a question of massive funding at the outset, but of a dynamic that we're building gradually, with a real strategy behind it.
You mentioned raising private funds: is this an imminent announcement?
Not yet. We're actively working on it, but we're not going to announce anything just yet. That said, this is an important step for us. Today, the entire Ethereum ecosystem is in a dynamic of support. A lot of people hold ETH and want to see the protocol flourish. Even though ETH's price hasn't performed as well as other assets recently, the adoption is real, tangible, and everyone understands what it means in the long term.
So there's a real alignment of interests. People want ETH to succeed. And that translates into support, discussions, investment intentions. We're in the process of putting all this together, structuring our strategy, and when we're ready, we'll announce something. But it won't be for a while yet. We want to do things properly, with the right partners, and in good time.
"We want to build solutions co-designed with end users, based on their real needs" With these funds, do you plan to launch a concrete product?
Yes, absolutely. The aim of this fundraising is not just to finance our current activities, but also - and above all - to be able to develop products that bring real utility to Ethereum, particularly on the theme of real asset tokenisation (RWA). We believe that Ethereum should host many more applications, and that these should be accessible on all L2s. That's where we want to focus our efforts.
But we want this product logic to be demand-led. That's why our first step today is to go and talk to all the Wall Street institutions. To understand their sticking points, their needs, their vision of tokenisation. How far have they got? What's missing to get them to take the plunge? And then, on that basis, we can design products that are really useful. It's not about building for the sake of building. In crypto, we often see teams developing things according to their own vision of the world, without taking into account the reality of the market. The result is that these products are not used on a large scale. We want to do the opposite. We want to build solutions that are co-designed with end-users, based on their real needs.
Institutions have very specific constraints. They need solutions for confidentiality, asset custody, KYC... These are things that the lambda crypto user takes for granted or ignores, but which are absolutely central to institutional adoption. That's where we'll come in.
In a crypto ecosystem where many projects are launching their tokens, are you planning to create one?
Frankly, I don't know. There are no plans at the moment. Personally, I really like ETH. I think it's an extraordinary token. And I'm also very much in favour of the "pre-token" development model, like what we saw with Uniswap or Aave before they launched their own tokens. It's a healthy model, based on generating real revenue. Fees that come from real economic activity, which can then be captured or redistributed. It's a proven, scalable model.
I also believe in this simple but powerful idea: the token is ETH. Ethereum already has its token, and that token has very solid economic and technical properties. So for the time being, we're concentrating on product development and value creation, and we'll see whether or not a token makes sense. But it's not a goal in itself.
>> Tokens and/or equity: Crypto projects' recipes for raising funds
What arguments do you use today to convince traditional companies to join Ethereum?
What's fascinating is how much the situation has changed. A few years ago, it was extremely difficult to engage in a serious discussion with traditional institutions. I remember many meetings being cancelled, people refusing to talk about crypto, and even a total reluctance to use even the word "blockchain". The subject was seen as toxic, speculative, even dangerous.
But today, the exact opposite is true. The situation has completely changed. Now, all financial institutions are virtually obliged to have a blockchain strategy. In the same way that after the rise of ChatGPT, they all had to develop an AI strategy. It has become unavoidable. And the starting point for our discussion is simple: do you believe that, in the future, financial assets - shares, bonds, funds, etc. - will be tokenised? - will be tokenised? The answer is almost always yes.
And once this is established, the next question is: on which public and neutral infrastructure are you going to tokenise them? Which platform is the most secure, the most tried and tested, the most global? The answer is clear: Ethereum. There is no serious competitor at this level.
Then we get into the more practical aspects: what type of blockspace do you need? Some institutions want a dedicated blockchain, but connected to Ethereum - that's where custom L2s come in. Others want access to liquidity directly on L1. And here, Ethereum is also unbeatable.
Finally, as we talk to these players, we discover the sticking points: regulatory constraints, confidentiality needs, compliance requirements. These are all elements that need to be taken into account if we really want to build appropriate solutions. But the core of our message always remains the same: assets will be tokenised, and Ethereum is the most neutral, resilient and suitable ground for this.
"If you look at where the stablecoins are, where the tokenised assets are, where the serious applications are, the majority are on Ethereum" A lot of discussion at the moment revolves around the ETH price, which is often seen as disappointing. Does this worry the institutions you trade with?
Ironically, no. It's not a major source of concern. The institutions have a more structural, longer-term vision. What they see is that Ethereum - and more broadly the EVM ecosystem - has a significant technological and economic advantage. If you look at where the stablecoins are, where the tokenised assets are, where the serious applications are, the majority are on Ethereum.
The fact that Ethereum has been operating without interruption for almost ten years is a very strong argument. Its resilience, its level of security and the maturity of its ecosystem are obvious assets. Institutions recognise this.
Now, it's true that some are questioning ETH's relative performance, particularly compared to Bitcoin or certain alternative L1s. This is a fact of life. But here again, we need to put things into perspective. The Bitcoin trade - i.e. the positioning of BTC as a store of value - is now materialising. But in many ways, Ethereum is a better store of value. It is designed to be much more sustainable, with low inflation, native return via proof of stake, and security via validators rather than energy-hungry miners.
In addition, ETH captures the value generated by all the economic activity on the network. It's an economic asset, productive, and overall better designed. The problem is that this reality has not yet been fully reflected in the price, nor in the general public's perception.
And yet, we are seeing strong signals: there are ETFs on ETH, growing adoption of stablecoins, a regulatory infrastructure that is being put in place. All this should be reflected in the price. So there is work to be done to highlight the fundamental qualities of ETH as a store of value and a pivotal asset in the Ethereum ecosystem. And that's part of our mission as well.
>> David Duong (Coinbase): "ETH's disappointing price can be explained by a migration of speculative activity away from Ethereum"
Do you think Ethereum's roadmap, which focused heavily on L2s, was a strategic mistake? Should priority be given back to L1?
No, I don't think it was a mistake. It's a legitimate question, but we need to look at the long term. If a blockchain wants to reach global scale, it will inevitably need L2-type solutions. It's not a hypothesis, it's a necessity. Increasing bandwidth, reducing latency, customising environments... all of this requires modular architectures like L2.
Besides, the other blockchains that today boast speed and low cost will, sooner or later, face the same challenge. They too will have to adopt L2s. Avalanche, for example, is already talking about sub-networks, which is a form of L2. So it's not an issue specific to Ethereum.
What I do think, however, is that Ethereum may have over-prioritised L1 for a while. At the same time, the scalability of L1 should have been advanced, in particular to accommodate high value-added applications, such as tokenised assets. The good news is that this shift is now taking place. Vitalik Buterin, Tomasz Stańczak and others at the Foundation recently said that L1 should once again become a strategic priority.
So we're seeing a roadmap emerge to increase L1 capacity, while continuing to optimise L2s. It's a winning combination. Ethereum has always been focused on the long term, sometimes perhaps too much so. At Etherealize, we're balancing that out with more short-term, concrete initiatives. You need quick wins, use cases, proof of value. And that's what we're striving to provide.
>> Layers 2 Ethereum: state of play and challenges
