Former Ethereum Foundation employee sues EF-affiliated entities and Vitalik Buterin
According to public filings of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Kayleen Fulton, former head of the Ethereum Foundation's Protocol Support team, known in the Ethereum community as “Nixo,” filed a lawsuit on November 4, 2026, case No. 1:26-cv-05818. The defendants include Ethereum Asia Pacific Limited, Stiftung Ethereum, Lightsource HR Global, LLC, Vensure Employer Services, Inc., co-executive director Bastian Aue, and Vitalik Buterin. The causes of action include violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), among others.
The complaint alleges that Fulton informed management in writing on March 24, 2026, that she had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer; the next day, she and Trent Van Epps led 53 Protocol cluster employees in signing a joint letter to the board opposing a Mandate that required everyone to sign, which included a “Source Seppuku License” clause requiring the relevant person to “end his or her own life with a sword” if they failed to fulfill their commitments. The complaint also alleges that on April 6, 2026, she and Trent Van Epps were terminated one after the other, about 30 minutes apart. Fulton is seeking damages and asks the court to declare her separation agreement invalid. All of the above are allegations in the complaint.
Original source:
Title: Fulton v. Ethereum Asia Pacific Limited et al, Complaint Publisher: United States District Court for the District of Colorado (via CourtListener) Publication date: 2026-11-04 URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/og-lookup/?file_path=recap/gov.uscourts.cod.261399/gov.uscourts.cod.261399.1.0.pdf Source nature: public court filing Verification status: This translation is based on actually reading the main contents of the complaint; verification date 2026-11-09; no access restrictions Supported content: supports the plaintiff identity, list of defendants, filing on November 4, causes of action under the ADA and FMLA, written notice of ovarian cancer diagnosis on March 24, joint letter signed by 53 people the next day opposing the Mandate containing the seppuku clause, the allegation that she and Trent Van Epps were terminated one after the other on April 6, and the requests for damages and a declaration invalidating the separation agreement
ABAB AI Insight
The complaint describes Fulton as the head of the Ethereum Foundation's Protocol Support team, responsible for assisting the All Core Developers process, which determines Ethereum protocol upgrades. She began working in Colorado in February 2025, with a salary of about $195,000. The complaint alleges that on February 25, 2026, the board distributed a draft of the Mandate to employees, including a “Source Seppuku License”; 79 employees voted to remove that clause, and Vitalik Buterin had promised “major revisions,” but the formal version released on March 13 still retained the original text and was recorded on the Ethereum blockchain.
The complaint further alleges that on March 20, Bastian Aue asked employees to make a personal commitment to the Mandate by Monday, otherwise it would be treated as a resignation. On March 24, Fulton disclosed her ovarian cancer diagnosis in writing and asked that her employment status not be changed; the next day she and Trent Van Epps sent a letter signed by 53 people, stating support for the direction of the Mandate but refusing to confirm under coercion, and that they had not resigned. The complaint alleges that the other signatories kept their positions, and that only the two organizers were dismissed on April 6. Fulton says she was forced to sign a separation agreement within three days, then withdrew it through a lawyer on April 17, and says she received no consideration.
The complaint also cites a recorded conversation between Fulton and Vitalik Buterin at a meeting in Svalbard, Norway, on May 1, 2026. It is alleged that when asked about the dismissal of the organizers, Buterin spoke about what kind of dynamics you want to reward inside EF and said that if rewarding causing trouble produces results, then everyone will know that this is the way to influence EF outcomes. All of the above are unilateral allegations by the plaintiff, and the defendants have not filed a formal answer in the public record. Observable next developments include whether the defendants file an answer or motion, the court's preliminary ruling on the validity of the separation agreement and the ADA/FMLA claims, and whether EF issues a public response to the Mandate clause.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
The case currently has only the plaintiff's complaint; all descriptions of the motives for the dismissals and the Mandate clause are allegations and have not yet been confirmed by the court.
The complaint directly links the timing of the dismissals to the disclosure of the cancer diagnosis and the organizing of the joint letter, and seeks a declaration that the separation agreement is invalid.