## Vaulta Foundation Four-Year Decline Record: Transparency Breaks, Fund Black Box, Ecosystem Trust Collapses

Once funded with 4.2 billion USD and hailed as the "Ethereum Killer," the public chain EOS is now experiencing an unprecedented trust crisis. After CEO Yves La Rose suddenly resigned, a series of decisions and operational details of the Vaulta Foundation (formerly EOS Network Foundation) surfaced, revealing a concerning reality: years of burning tens of millions of dollars in budget, yet no corresponding ecosystem results; transparency has gradually shifted from dense disclosures to complete black box; token prices repeatedly hit new lows, while the foundation consistently avoids responsibility.

### The Resignation Mystery: Power Vacuum Behind a Dignified Exit

On November 12, 2025, Yves La Rose posted a resignation statement on social media, stating that he had notified 21 network block producers to voluntarily step down on October 29. The statement was polite and full of gratitude, but four weeks later, the community discovered — the foundation’s core multi-signature accounts still remained under Yves’s control, with no signs of transfer.

What’s more alarming is that Yves subsequently recommended Aaron Cox, founder of Greymass, to succeed him. His first move after taking office was to propose a massive grant of 10 million $A (EOS) to extend core development funding. Community voices questioned — this was essentially a fund transfer under the guise of new management, a clever "life extension" operation.

The entire handover process exposed core governance issues of Vaulta: incomplete power transfer, lack of financial oversight, and opaque decision-making processes.

### Budget Out of Control: Astronomical Investments with Difficult-to-Track Results

Since the establishment of Vaulta Foundation in 2021, its budget has expanded, but ecosystem development has not accelerated. According to disclosed quarterly reports, Q4 2022 expenses peaked at $7,885,340, with the majority spent on marketing.

In Q4 2022 alone, marketing expenses reached $1,709,800; in Q1 2023, another $1,072,887 — in just six months, nearly 2.8 million USD invested in branding and PR activities. However, tangible community results were limited to conference attendance, media coverage, and Twitter follower growth. Key indicators like developer ecosystem growth, on-chain daily active users, and total value locked (TVL) were rarely mentioned in reports.

What did these huge investments actually achieve? Community perception declined even as spending increased. When all reports only highlight "highlights" and ignore "results," transparency gradually spirals out of control.

### Dispute Over Middleware Grants: The Mystery of 5 Million Funds

In June 2024, Vaulta Foundation allocated 15 million $A (EOS) to establish an "Intermediary Software Special Fund," with the first tranche of 5 million $A transferred to Greymass team.

On-chain data shows a patterned transfer route: the foundation account deposits into a newly created Greymass account, then monthly transfers to specific accounts marked as "Operation + Price"; these accounts further transfer to others, ultimately distributing to multiple recipients with transfer notes like "Reward Payout + amount." Most receiving accounts quickly transfer the funds to exchanges for cashing out.

Although Greymass released several development updates early on, there have been almost no technical成果 announced publicly over the past year. The middleware tools built remain plagued by compatibility and stability issues, and have not been widely adopted by mainstream developers.

Community skepticism is clear: does the 5 million $A involve salary duplication, unverified accounts receiving wages, or other opaque behaviors? Are fund disbursements closely aligned with Aaron’s appointment, suggesting "self-approval" of budgets? Is the salary structure lacking third-party oversight? Although Greymass contributed to ecosystem development early on, questions remain whether they were misled by new policies, or deviated from original intentions after losing oversight. No one has responded to these questions to date.

### Token Price Plummets, Foundation Claims No Responsibility

$A (EOS) has been declining this year, bottoming out at $0.21, a dangerous signal capable of triggering an ecosystem red alert. Yet, in response to community inquiries, the foundation’s consistent reply has been: "Token price is outside the foundation’s responsibilities."

This assertion cannot be refuted — technical organizations indeed have no obligation to manipulate markets. But the contradiction lies in the fact that, as all ecosystem indicators decline simultaneously and community confidence collapses, the foundation has not discussed any "stability expectations" or "market protection mechanisms." Instead, more unsettling decisions followed: the foundation announced "dissolution," with no roadmap or handover plan.

Community doubts are not about whether the foundation should be responsible for the token price, but why, at a critical moment of trust crisis, did they choose to withdraw? Is it due to helplessness, disinterest, or are there issues they are unwilling to face?

### The Transparency Cliff: From Weekly Reports to Total Silence

Vaulta Foundation was once known for its "transparent, community-driven" governance promises:

2021: Weekly progress reports (Everything EOS Weekly Report)
2022: Switched to monthly reports (Monthly Yield Report)
2023: Reduced to quarterly reports (Quarterly Report)
2024 to present: Complete silence

Since Q1 2024, no financial reports have been released. No audits, no budget breakdowns, no project lists, no unsettled grant explanations. The community is forced to accept a harsh reality: the foundation’s operations have shifted from "high-frequency transparency" to a "complete black box."

Meanwhile, several high-profile collaboration projects announced by Vaulta mostly stalled at the "communication stage," lacking actual implementation. The promised "transparent operations" ultimately turned into a silent cliff.

### Funding Black Hole: Grant Recipients and Results Forever Mysterious

Looking back at the foundation’s early days, Vaulta did attempt to rebuild the ecosystem through grant programs like Grant Framework and Recognition Grants. In the first report of Q4 2021, the foundation disbursed a one-time total of:

- $3.5 million USD in Recognition Grants (average $100,000 per project)
- $1.3 million USD to five technical working groups for whitepapers
- $1.265 million USD supporting community autonomous organization EdenOnEOS
- $500,000 USD as the first quarter funding pool

This was also the only quarterly report during Vaulta’s four-year operation that fully disclosed grant recipients.

From Q4 2021 to Q4 2023, although grants consistently accounted for the largest portion of quarterly expenses (sometimes 40%–60%), reports gradually stopped disclosing:

- Specific grant recipients
- Actual amounts received by each project
- Project acceptance status
- Details of fund usage
- Whether projects achieved milestones

In other words, the figures are still visible, but information has vanished entirely.

Did these grants truly promote ecosystem development? Were funds used effectively? Were projects completed and delivered? Why does the foundation never disclose more information? These questions reveal a worrying possibility: that the foundation has been pouring money under the guise of "ecosystem funding" from the start, buying influence externally while internally hoarding inflationary funds and reserves, lacking results and oversight.

The matching pool funds exceed tens of millions of USD, yet most project updates are extremely sparse, and some even disappear after receiving funds.

### The Bankruptcy of Decentralized Governance

Vaulta Foundation once promised governance reform with "transparent, community-driven" principles, but over the past four years, it has gradually become closed. From Yves’s dignified resignation yet delayed handover, to the 5 million $A middleware grant with no accountability, from millions of dollars in quarterly marketing expenses with no results, to complete silence after ecosystem grants — this is not a "failure of decentralized governance," but a systemic exploitation of institutional loopholes.

Vaulta’s collapse is not only a tragedy for EOS but also a microcosm of the betrayal of Web3 ideals. This record is both a list of accusations and a warning to the entire ecosystem governance model. When transparency disappears, oversight mechanisms fail, and fund flows become mysterious, past promises turn into illusions.