some of the trouble in reasoning about "strategy for ethereum" is in the tension between:

(1) "strategy is choosing what not to do", and 

(2) ethereum is a large decentralized ecosystem with surface area that reaches both broad across the world and deep into it

I work for Ethereum at the Ethereum Foundation.

i feel like talking about "strategy for ethereum" is a misnomer, in the same way that talking about a strategy for "the [global] banking system" doesn't really make sense. Participants (such as the EF) should have strategies, but some ~groups are too diffuse to be viewed as single entities

Here's how I see it:

In the normal case, the subject and actor of strategy are the same ("What can my company do (actor) to help my company (subject) survive this market downturn?"). 

Here, they are separated. The actor of strategy is still an org or person, but the subject of strategy is Ethereum.

Knowing the actor of strategy is obviously important, because the capabilities of that actor define possible actions, points of leverage, etc. 

Knowing the subject of strategy also matters. Ethereum has needs, dangers, implicit objectives, which shape what would be a "good strategy" for helping Ethereum.