Vitalik Buterin is the person most closely associated with creating Ethereum. He wrote the original Ethereum whitepaper in 2013, helped assemble the early team, and remains the network’s most recognizable thinker.

But calling him the “Ethereum creator” can also mislead people.

Ethereum is not a company with a founder-CEO. It is an open-source protocol, a developer ecosystem, a financial settlement layer, and a social coordination network. Vitalik still shapes Ethereum’s direction through research, writing, and public argument, but he does not control the chain, approve transactions, set gas fees, or unilaterally decide upgrades.

That distinction matters. If you are trying to understand Ethereum, invest in ETH, build on the network, evaluate decentralization, or compare Ethereum with newer chains, the real question is not just “Who created Ethereum?”

The better question is: how much power does Ethereum’s creator still have?

Who actually created Ethereum?

Vitalik Buterin is Ethereum’s original author and leading founder. He proposed Ethereum as a general-purpose blockchain capable of running decentralized applications, not just transferring value like Bitcoin.

The idea was described in the Ethereum whitepaper, first circulated in 2013. Ethereum launched publicly in 2015 after a crowdfunding sale and several years of early development.

Vitalik Buterin’s specific contribution

Vitalik’s core insight was that blockchains could do more than track balances. Instead of building a new blockchain for every application, Ethereum would act as a programmable base layer.

That meant developers could deploy:

  • Smart contracts
  • Tokens
  • Decentralized exchanges
  • Lending protocols
  • NFT marketplaces
  • DAOs
  • Stablecoin systems
  • Onchain games
  • Identity and coordination tools

Bitcoin had already proven that a decentralized monetary network could work. Ethereum asked a different question: what if decentralized computation became a shared public resource?

That framing is why Vitalik is considered Ethereum’s creator, even though many people helped build the network.

Ethereum also had several co-founders

Ethereum was not built by Vitalik alone. The early group included several co-founders who contributed to funding, engineering, business formation, community building, and technical design.

Commonly cited Ethereum co-founders include:

Person Early role in Ethereum Later association
Vitalik Buterin Whitepaper author, protocol vision, research leadership Ethereum researcher and public intellectual
Gavin Wood Technical design, Ethereum Yellow Paper, Solidity influence Polkadot, Web3 Foundation
Joseph Lubin Early funding, ecosystem and company formation ConsenSys
Charles Hoskinson Early organizational role Cardano
Anthony Di Iorio Early funding and organization Decentral, crypto entrepreneurship
Mihai Alisie Early Ethereum Foundation and community work Ethereum ecosystem projects
Jeffrey Wilcke Early client implementation Go Ethereum
Amir Chetrit Early founding involvement Less publicly active in Ethereum

The exact “co-founder” list can vary depending on the source because Ethereum’s earliest organizational period was fluid. What is not disputed is that Vitalik wrote the original proposal and became the network’s defining figure.

Why does Vitalik get more credit than other Ethereum co-founders?

Vitalik receives disproportionate attention because his role was not just operational. He supplied the conceptual architecture.

Many founders help launch projects. Fewer create a new category.

Ethereum introduced the dominant model for programmable blockchains: a base layer where developers can deploy arbitrary applications through smart contracts. Later chains, layer-2 networks, rollups, and app-specific ecosystems all respond to that idea in some way.

The whitepaper mattered because it created a shared language

The Ethereum whitepaper gave builders a vocabulary for what they were trying to create:

  • Smart contracts as programmable agreements
  • A blockchain as a generalized state machine
  • ETH as the native asset for paying computation costs
  • Applications as onchain code rather than hosted web services
  • Tokens as programmable assets

That language helped early developers, investors, and users coordinate around the same idea.

A useful comparison: Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, gave the world peer-to-peer digital money. Vitalik Buterin gave the world the most influential design for a programmable blockchain economy.

Vitalik stayed involved after launch

Some crypto founders leave, pivot, or become mostly symbolic. Vitalik remained intellectually active through Ethereum’s hardest transitions:

  • The DAO crisis in 2016
  • The long move from proof of work to proof of stake
  • The EIP-1559 fee market redesign
  • The rollup-centric roadmap
  • Account abstraction research
  • Proto-danksharding and data availability improvements
  • Debates around censorship resistance, MEV, privacy, and staking centralization

That continuity strengthened the association between Ethereum and Vitalik. He did not only propose the network; he kept contributing to its roadmap.

Does Vitalik Buterin control Ethereum today?

No. Vitalik Buterin does not control Ethereum.

He has influence, but not command authority. He cannot force validators, node operators, client teams, application developers, exchanges, wallets, layer-2 teams, or users to accept a change they reject.

Ethereum governance is messy by design. It depends on social consensus, open-source implementation, client diversity, technical review, and voluntary adoption.

Ethereum is not run like a company

A company has executives, employees, a board, and legal control over products. Ethereum does not.

Question Founder-led company Ethereum
Can the founder order product changes? Usually yes No
Can the founder reverse user transactions? Sometimes, depending on platform rules No
Can the founder change fees directly? Usually yes No
Can users reject an upgrade? Usually no Yes, by choosing software
Who runs infrastructure? Company or vendors Independent validators, node operators, client teams, infrastructure providers
Who owns the protocol? Legal entity or shareholders No single owner
Who decides upgrades? Management and engineering leadership Rough consensus across developers, researchers, validators, apps, exchanges, and users

This is the central misconception behind many “Ethereum creator” searches. Vitalik is influential, but Ethereum is not his private platform.

What Vitalik can influence

Vitalik can influence Ethereum by:

  • Publishing research and essays
  • Participating in technical discussions
  • Proposing roadmap priorities
  • Explaining trade-offs to the community
  • Supporting or criticizing Ethereum Improvement Proposals
  • Encouraging long-term values such as decentralization, censorship resistance, and credible neutrality

His writing often gives the ecosystem a common frame. That matters in a decentralized environment where no one can simply issue orders.

What Vitalik cannot do

Vitalik cannot:

  • Move your ETH
  • Reverse a transaction
  • Freeze a wallet
  • Approve or reject smart contract deployments
  • Force validators to run specific software
  • Single-handedly change Ethereum’s monetary policy
  • Decide which tokens are legitimate
  • Guarantee that a layer-2, bridge, wallet, or DeFi protocol is safe

If someone claims “Vitalik can fix this” after a scam, bridge exploit, or failed token launch, they misunderstand how Ethereum works.

How does Ethereum governance work without a CEO?

Ethereum governance is informal, technical, and social. That makes it harder to explain than shareholder voting or government regulation, but it is also one reason the network has remained resilient.

The closest thing Ethereum has to a change process is the Ethereum Improvement Proposal, or EIP.

The EIP process filters ideas before they reach users

An EIP is a formal proposal for changing Ethereum or standardizing behavior in the ecosystem. Some EIPs define protocol changes. Others define application standards such as token interfaces.

A proposal usually moves through several layers of scrutiny:

  1. Idea formation
    Researchers, developers, or community members identify a problem.

  2. Public discussion
    The idea is debated in forums, GitHub, research calls, and community channels.

  3. Specification
    The proposal becomes precise enough for client teams to implement.

  4. Client implementation
    Multiple Ethereum clients must add the change.

  5. Testing
    Changes are tested on devnets, testnets, audits, and simulations.

  6. Social coordination
    Validators, exchanges, infrastructure providers, wallets, applications, and node operators prepare.

  7. Activation
    The upgrade goes live only if enough of the network adopts compatible software.

Vitalik can participate in this process, but he does not bypass it.

AllCoreDevs is coordination, not a boardroom

Ethereum core developers hold public coordination calls often referred to as AllCoreDevs. These calls are important because they help client teams and researchers align on protocol upgrades.

But AllCoreDevs is not a board of directors. It cannot make Ethereum users run a software version they do not want.

That distinction matters during controversial changes. A technically valid upgrade still needs broad social legitimacy.

Ethereum governance is slow for a reason

People often criticize Ethereum for moving slowly compared with newer chains. Sometimes that criticism is fair. Ethereum’s process can be frustrating.

But speed has a cost.

A blockchain securing hundreds of billions of dollars in assets, stablecoins, lending markets, NFTs, DAOs, and layer-2 settlement cannot upgrade like a consumer app. A bug in a major protocol upgrade can damage the base layer, not just one product feature.

Ethereum’s governance prioritizes caution because the network’s failure mode is severe.

What is Vitalik Buterin’s role after The Merge?

The Merge changed Ethereum from proof of work to proof of stake in September 2022. It was one of the most complex upgrades in blockchain history because Ethereum swapped its consensus mechanism while keeping the application layer running.

Vitalik helped explain and advocate for the proof-of-stake roadmap, but he did not personally execute The Merge. The upgrade required years of work from researchers, client teams, staking infrastructure providers, validators, auditors, educators, and the broader community.

His role is now closer to protocol philosopher and research catalyst

Vitalik’s current role is best understood as a combination of:

  • Research contributor
  • Roadmap communicator
  • Public educator
  • Values advocate
  • Ecosystem critic
  • Long-term risk analyst

He often writes about issues that are not immediately marketable but matter for Ethereum’s survival:

  • Validator centralization
  • MEV extraction
  • Censorship resistance
  • Privacy
  • Wallet security
  • Layer-2 trust assumptions
  • Social recovery
  • Protocol ossification
  • Quantum resistance
  • Public goods funding

That role is powerful, but it is not managerial.

The post-Merge roadmap depends on many teams

Ethereum development today is distributed across multiple independent teams and domains.

Area What it affects Vitalik’s role Who else matters
Consensus research Validator design, finality, staking incentives High intellectual influence Ethereum Foundation researchers, client teams, academic cryptographers
Execution layer EVM behavior, gas accounting, transaction processing Moderate influence Geth, Nethermind, Besu, Erigon, Reth and other client teams
Layer-2 scaling Rollups, data availability, settlement costs Strong roadmap influence Optimism, Arbitrum, Base, Starknet, zkSync, Scroll, Polygon, L2 researchers
Wallet UX Account abstraction, recovery, security Strong advocacy Wallet teams, standards authors, app developers
DeFi behavior Liquidity, lending, swaps, MEV Indirect influence Protocol teams, market makers, users, auditors
Governance norms Values, legitimacy, decentralization High cultural influence Community, validators, developers, institutions

This is the better way to understand Ethereum today: Vitalik still shapes the conversation, but execution is widely distributed.

Can Vitalik change Ethereum’s fees, speed, or roadmap by himself?

No. He can propose improvements, but Ethereum’s performance depends on protocol design, network demand, layer-2 adoption, validator behavior, wallet design, and application architecture.

This is where many users confuse influence with control.

Example: a user swapping $100 during high gas

Imagine a user wants to swap $100 of USDC for ETH on Ethereum mainnet during a busy market event.

What affects the result?

  • The DEX liquidity pool or aggregator route
  • Current gas prices
  • Slippage settings
  • MEV and sandwich risk
  • Token approval costs
  • Wallet transaction settings
  • Mainnet congestion
  • Whether the user chooses mainnet or a layer-2

Vitalik cannot make that individual swap cheaper.

Ethereum improvements may lower costs over time, especially through layer-2 scaling and data availability upgrades. But the execution quality of one swap depends on the tools and venues used. Platforms such as switchfi.app automatically compare multiple liquidity sources before selecting an execution route, but even routing software cannot override base-layer gas costs.

The practical lesson: Ethereum’s creator does not control your transaction outcome. Your wallet, route, chain, gas settings, and market conditions do.

Example: a trader moving $10,000 through DeFi

A trader swapping $10,000 of a volatile token faces different risks:

  • Price impact if liquidity is thin
  • Failed transactions if slippage is too tight
  • MEV if the trade is visible and profitable to attack
  • Higher approval and execution costs
  • Smart contract risk from the protocol used
  • Bridge risk if moving funds across chains

None of those risks disappear because Vitalik supports Ethereum. Ethereum is credible infrastructure, not a guarantee that every contract deployed on it is safe.

This is one of the most important distinctions for new users: Ethereum is permissionless. That is a feature and a risk.

Why did Ethereum outgrow its founder?

Ethereum outgrew Vitalik because that was the point.

A decentralized protocol cannot depend forever on one person’s judgment, availability, or reputation. If Ethereum required Vitalik to approve decisions, it would be less credible as neutral infrastructure.

Founder dependence is a centralization risk

Founder influence can help early projects move quickly. It can also become a weakness.

Founder influence Benefit Risk
Clear vision Helps early coordination Can suppress alternative ideas
Public trust Attracts developers and capital Creates personality-driven governance
Fast decision-making Reduces ambiguity Can bypass technical review
Narrative strength Makes complex ideas easier to explain Markets may overreact to founder comments
Long-term consistency Protects values across cycles Can slow generational transition

Ethereum has not eliminated founder influence. But it has reduced dependence on founder authority.

The ecosystem became too large for one person to direct

Ethereum now includes:

  • Mainnet validators
  • Execution and consensus clients
  • Layer-2 networks
  • DeFi protocols
  • Stablecoin issuers
  • NFT infrastructure
  • Wallet providers
  • Node operators
  • Indexers
  • Bridges
  • Auditors
  • Researchers
  • Exchanges
  • DAOs
  • App developers
  • Institutional infrastructure providers

Each group has different incentives. A stablecoin issuer cares about compliance and liquidity. A rollup team cares about throughput and fees. A solo staker cares about hardware requirements and decentralization. A DeFi trader cares about execution quality. A client team cares about correctness and security.

Vitalik can influence the shared roadmap, but he cannot optimize every stakeholder’s priorities.

Is Ethereum more decentralized because Vitalik has less direct power?

Partly, yes. But decentralization is not a slogan. It has multiple layers.

Ethereum is more decentralized than a founder-controlled network if no single person can impose protocol changes. But that does not mean Ethereum has no concentration risks.

Ethereum’s decentralization should be evaluated across layers

Layer Decentralization question Why it matters
Validator set Who proposes and attests to blocks? Affects censorship resistance and consensus security
Client diversity Does one software client dominate? A bug in a dominant client can threaten the chain
Staking providers Are validators concentrated in large services? Affects governance pressure and regulatory exposure
MEV supply chain Who builds and relays blocks? Affects transaction ordering and censorship risk
Layer-2 sequencers Who orders L2 transactions? Many rollups still have centralized components
Developer governance Who writes and reviews upgrades? Affects roadmap legitimacy
Infrastructure Are RPCs, APIs, and front ends centralized? Users may experience censorship even if the base layer remains open

Vitalik often draws attention to these risks rather than pretending they are solved. That is part of why his current role remains valuable.

Less founder control does not mean no leadership

Decentralized networks still need leadership. They just need leadership that persuades rather than commands.

Vitalik’s influence is strongest when he clarifies trade-offs:

  • Scale versus decentralization
  • Privacy versus compliance pressure
  • UX simplicity versus self-custody
  • Fast finality versus validator burden
  • MEV mitigation versus market efficiency
  • Protocol flexibility versus ossification

This kind of leadership is compatible with decentralization because it invites debate instead of demanding obedience.

How does Vitalik compare with other crypto founders?

The comparison is useful, but only if handled carefully. Different projects have different governance models, technical goals, and histories.

Vitalik’s role is unusual because Ethereum became large enough to outgrow founder control while still keeping its founder intellectually active.

Founder / creator Project Current relationship to project Governance implication
Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin Absent since early years Bitcoin relies heavily on cultural conservatism and rough consensus
Vitalik Buterin Ethereum Active researcher and public voice Strong influence without formal control
Charles Hoskinson Cardano Active public founder through Input Output More founder-visible strategic leadership
Gavin Wood Polkadot Founder and technical architect Strong influence through technical vision and ecosystem institutions
Anatoly Yakovenko Solana Active co-founder and public technical leader Founder-led communication remains important
Do Kwon Terra Former public founder before collapse Example of extreme founder and ecosystem risk concentration

The point is not that one model is always superior. Early-stage networks often benefit from strong founder leadership. Mature settlement layers need stronger checks against unilateral control.

Ethereum’s model is neither pure democracy nor corporate management. It is closer to open-source governance with economic consequences.

What are the pros and cons of Vitalik’s continued influence?

Vitalik’s continued role is mostly positive for Ethereum, but it is not risk-free.

Pros

  • Long-term orientation: He often focuses on structural problems rather than short-term hype.
  • Technical credibility: His arguments usually engage with implementation trade-offs, not just slogans.
  • Public education: He makes complex roadmap issues understandable to non-specialists.
  • Values continuity: He reinforces Ethereum’s identity around decentralization, credible neutrality, and public goods.
  • Ecosystem accountability: His criticism can pressure teams to address weak trust assumptions, centralization, or bad UX.

Cons

  • Market overreaction: Traders may treat casual comments as policy signals.
  • Narrative dependence: Media coverage can exaggerate his personal control.
  • Coordination bias: Developers may give his proposals more attention than equally strong ideas from lesser-known researchers.
  • Political targeting: Regulators, critics, or litigants may incorrectly frame Ethereum as founder-directed.
  • Community defensiveness: Some supporters may treat criticism of Vitalik as criticism of Ethereum itself.

The healthiest interpretation is balanced: Vitalik is one of Ethereum’s most important contributors, not Ethereum’s owner.

What common mistakes do people make about the Ethereum creator?

Misunderstandings about Vitalik usually come from applying company logic to protocol governance.

Mistake 1: Thinking Vitalik is Ethereum’s CEO

Ethereum has no CEO. The Ethereum Foundation supports research, development, grants, and ecosystem work, but it does not own the protocol.

Vitalik is associated with the Foundation and the broader research community, but Ethereum’s legitimacy does not come from an employment title.

Mistake 2: Assuming he can reverse hacks

Ethereum transactions are final once confirmed under the protocol’s rules. Smart contract exploits are usually application-layer failures, not something the creator of Ethereum can simply undo.

The 2016 DAO fork is often misunderstood here. The community split after a major exploit, and Ethereum and Ethereum Classic emerged as separate chains. That event showed that social consensus can respond to extreme crises, but it also showed the cost of doing so. It did not create a standing “Vitalik reversal button.”

Mistake 3: Blaming him for every token on Ethereum

Anyone can deploy a token contract. That permissionless design is why Ethereum became a center of DeFi and token experimentation.

It is also why scams exist.

A token using Ethereum does not mean Vitalik, the Ethereum Foundation, or core developers endorsed it.

Mistake 4: Believing Ethereum upgrades are personal promises

Vitalik may write about future improvements, but Ethereum roadmaps are not guaranteed delivery schedules. Research can fail. Designs can change. Priorities can shift after testing.

Crypto users should treat roadmap posts as technical direction, not contractual commitments.

Mistake 5: Confusing ETH with every Ethereum-based asset

ETH is the native asset of Ethereum. ERC-20 tokens, NFTs, stablecoins, and governance tokens are separate assets issued by independent contracts or organizations.

Vitalik created the original Ethereum concept. He did not create every asset that runs on it.

How should readers evaluate Vitalik’s statements?

Vitalik’s writing is worth reading closely, but not passively. Treat it as high-quality input, not final authority.

Expert tips for interpreting his role

  • Separate research from implementation. A blog post may describe a direction years before it becomes production-ready.
  • Check whether an idea has an EIP. If it has not entered a formal proposal process, it is still early.
  • Watch client team adoption. Ethereum changes require implementation across clients, not just agreement on Twitter.
  • Look for trade-offs. Serious Ethereum research usually admits costs and limitations.
  • Avoid market literalism. A technical essay is not necessarily an ETH price catalyst.
  • Track layer-specific impact. Some ideas affect mainnet, while others mostly affect rollups, wallets, staking, or app design.
  • Read criticism too. Ethereum governance improves when proposals face strong review.

A good rule: if a statement sounds like “Vitalik said it, so Ethereum will do it,” the interpretation is probably too simplistic.

What does Vitalik’s changed role mean for ETH holders, developers, and users?

Vitalik’s reduced direct control affects different groups in different ways.

For ETH holders

ETH holders should not evaluate Ethereum like a startup stock with a founder-CEO. There is no quarterly management call and no executive team with unilateral authority.

Relevant questions include:

  • Is Ethereum maintaining credible neutrality?
  • Are staking risks manageable?
  • Is client diversity improving?
  • Are layer-2s reducing costs without creating unacceptable trust assumptions?
  • Is ETH still central to blockspace demand, staking security, and settlement?
  • Are protocol upgrades strengthening the network’s long-term utility?

Vitalik’s views matter, but they are one signal among many.

For developers

Developers should pay attention to Ethereum’s roadmap, but they should build against what exists now.

If you are deploying an application, your immediate concerns are:

  • Gas costs on your target chain
  • Wallet support
  • Smart contract auditability
  • Liquidity access
  • User onboarding
  • Indexing and RPC reliability
  • Upgrade risk
  • Cross-chain assumptions
  • Regulatory exposure
  • MEV and transaction ordering

Vitalik’s research may indicate where Ethereum is heading, but production systems need current constraints.

For everyday users

Users should understand one practical point: Ethereum’s decentralization protects access, but it also removes customer support-style guarantees.

If you sign a malicious transaction, send funds to the wrong address, approve a bad contract, or bridge through an unsafe system, Vitalik cannot rescue you.

Use Ethereum as open infrastructure, not as a managed financial app.

Key takeaways

  • Vitalik Buterin is the original creator and most recognized founder of Ethereum.
  • Ethereum was also built by a wider founding team and a large open-source community.
  • Vitalik wrote the 2013 whitepaper that framed Ethereum as a programmable blockchain.
  • He remains influential through research, writing, and public debate.
  • He does not control Ethereum, approve transactions, reverse hacks, or unilaterally set fees.
  • Ethereum governance works through EIPs, client implementation, public review, and social consensus.
  • The network’s maturity depends partly on reducing founder dependence.
  • Vitalik’s current role is closer to research leader and protocol philosopher than CEO.
  • Users should treat his statements as important signals, not commands.
  • Ethereum’s decentralization is real, but it still has risks around staking, clients, MEV, infrastructure, and layer-2 systems.

FAQ

Who is the ethereum creator?

The ethereum creator most people mean is Vitalik Buterin. He wrote the original Ethereum whitepaper in 2013 and helped launch the network in 2015. Ethereum also had several co-founders and many early contributors.

Did Vitalik Buterin create Ethereum alone?

No. Vitalik created the original concept and whitepaper, but Ethereum required co-founders, developers, researchers, funders, community organizers, and client teams to become a working network.

Is Vitalik Buterin the CEO of Ethereum?

No. Ethereum has no CEO. It is an open-source decentralized protocol, not a company. Vitalik is an influential founder and researcher, but he does not manage Ethereum like a corporate executive.

Can Vitalik shut down Ethereum?

No. Ethereum runs across independent nodes and validators around the world. Vitalik cannot shut it down.

Can Vitalik reverse an Ethereum transaction?

No. Vitalik cannot reverse ordinary Ethereum transactions. The 2016 DAO fork was an extraordinary community-level event that resulted in a chain split, not a personal power available to Ethereum’s founder.

Does Vitalik decide Ethereum gas fees?

No. Gas fees are determined by network demand, blockspace supply, transaction priority fees, and Ethereum’s fee market rules. Protocol upgrades can change fee mechanics, but Vitalik cannot manually set fees.

Does the Ethereum Foundation control Ethereum?

The Ethereum Foundation is influential because it funds research, grants, education, and development. But it does not own Ethereum or have unilateral control over the protocol.

Why do people still listen to Vitalik?

People listen because he has deep historical context, strong technical understanding, and a long record of explaining Ethereum’s trade-offs. His influence comes from credibility, not formal authority.

What happened between Ethereum and Ethereum Classic?

After The DAO exploit in 2016, the Ethereum community split over whether to fork the chain. The forked chain retained the Ethereum name, while the unforked chain continued as Ethereum Classic. The event remains one of the most important governance debates in crypto history.

Is Ethereum decentralized if its founder is still active?

A founder can remain active without controlling a network. The better test is whether the founder can force changes. In Ethereum’s case, upgrades require broad adoption across developers, clients, validators, infrastructure, applications, and users.

What is Vitalik working on now?

Vitalik frequently writes and speaks about Ethereum scaling, proof of stake, privacy, account abstraction, public goods funding, MEV, censorship resistance, and long-term protocol design.

Should ETH investors follow Vitalik’s blog?

Yes, but with context. His writing is valuable for understanding Ethereum’s direction, but it should not be treated as investment advice or a guaranteed roadmap.

Final verdict

Vitalik Buterin is Ethereum’s creator in the sense that matters most: he articulated the original idea, helped coordinate the early project, and remains the network’s most important public thinker.

But Ethereum’s success also changed his role.

The protocol has grown beyond founder control. Its upgrades depend on researchers, client teams, validators, application developers, infrastructure providers, wallets, exchanges, and users choosing to coordinate around shared rules. Vitalik still influences that process, often more than anyone else, but he does not command it.

That is not a contradiction. It is Ethereum’s core achievement.

The creator remains vital, but the network no longer depends on being created again by him.

References