Kayleen Fulton, known as "Nixo," filed a complaint in Colorado on Nov. 4 against the Ethereum Foundation, its Singapore affiliate, executive Bastian Aue, and co-founder Vitalik Buterin. She alleges unlawful termination following her dismissal on April 6, which she links to a dispute over the organization’s updated mandate. The suit also claims disability discrimination and interference with medical leave rights coinciding with a cancer diagnosis she disclosed around the same time. Neither Fulton nor the Foundation replied to inquiries before publication.
The Mandate And The Pushback
The mandate, published March 13, codified Ethereum’s core "CROPS" principles: censorship resistance, open source, privacy, and security. It included a "Source Seppuku License" section stating employees would "take his or her own life with a sword" for failing to uphold their promise to Ethereum. Aue later clarified the reference was "not meant to be taken literally" and had "nothing to do with literal seppuku." Despite this clarification, Fulton and colleague Trent Van Epps organized a letter endorsing the direction while objecting to specific conditions. That letter ultimately garnered 53 signatures. The complaint alleges that because of this pushback, both Fulton and Van Epps were unlawfully terminated. Employees faced a choice to affirm their commitment to the mandate’s direction or leave, creating a high-stakes environment where dissent carried severe professional consequences.
Legal Claims And Recorded Conversations
Fulton seeks an unspecified amount in damages and lost pay. She reports being offered a year’s salary under a separation agreement but alleges she signed the release under duress, received no payments, and later rescinded it. The filing quotes a May 1 conversation with Buterin in Norway, where one-party consent to recording is legal. It does not state whether Buterin knew about or consented to the recording. In that exchange, Buterin said that "if you reward making a stink with outcomes," employees could use that as a way to influence the Foundation. This remark underscores the tension between internal governance and employee expression. The lawsuit paints a picture of an organization where challenging leadership directives, even through documented consensus, led to immediate job loss rather than dialogue.
