Ethereum (ETH) has been the face of bad news recently. The most recent issue was that of its Batch Overflow bug which resulted in most exchanges suspending deposits and withdrawals for ERC20 tokens. This led to some heated debates in the crypto community and also exposed a serious lack of coordination and deep disagreements among Ethereum developers. The most recent of these disagreements is over the EIP999 code which would result in the return of $264 million in lost funds. Of course, these funds will not be recovered but instead more Ethereum (ETH) will be printed by tampering the code.
Ethereum (ETH) is currently run by two software, Geth and Parity, both of which operate in different languages but maintain mutual correspondence to power the Ethereum (ETH) blockchain. If one of these software refuses to go forward with the EIP999 code, the consequences could be fatal. Not only would a situation like this result in a hard fork, it will significantly devalue both forked coins that come into existence. Perhaps this is why developers cannot take decisive steps to resolve this issue and may have to come up with another solution or as we have seen before, stall the issue till the next disagreement.
This is not just about EIP999. We witnessed similar disagreements in the past which ended up being on the media. The real concern is that if Ethereum (ETH) developers continue to argue and fight repeatedly over such deep rooted disagreements over and over again, will they be able to work on the project? The circumstances might change, the issue of debate might change but fundamental differences are very clear and simple. There is one group of Ethereum developers who do not mind printing more Ether (ETH) to recover lost funds and they are not opposed to tampering with the blockchain. There is another group of Ethereum developers who are strongly opposed to the idea of printing more Ether to recover lost funds and they do not approve of tampering with the blockchain over and over again as they feel that is akin to centralization whereas Ethereum was originally meant to be decentralized.
The way Ethereum (ETH) has constantly been running into trouble recently indoors and outdoors has convinced some developers to switch to Ethereum Classic (ETC), EOS(EOS), Cardano (ADA) and TRON (TRX) instead of dragging this debate of fundamental disagreements from one issue to another. Such deep rooted fundamental disagreements coupled with problems with ERC20 tokens and regulation challenges do not paint a very bright picture of Ethereum (ETH). These disagreements even if resolved for now will surface again and more importantly they will most likely surface more often. Just recently, Vitalik Buterin, cofounder of Ethereum boycotted a blockchain event citing differences with Coindesk. Furthermore, some Ethereum develops are increasingly objecting to the mechanism of voting and are concerned that Etheruem has sidetracked from its original vision.
If such disagreements continue to persist, a hard fork will become inevitable which will also have serious consequences on ERC20 tokens. As for Ethereum (ETH), a hard fork will split the coin into two smaller cryptocurrencies which will pave the way for competitors like Ethereum Classic (ETC), EOS (EOS), Tron (TRON) and Cardano (ADA) to pick the pieces and establish their foothold in the smart contracts industry.