Publication: The opinions and opinions expressed here are exclusively to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of the editorial editorial of crypto.news.
In February 2025, the Bybit Hack waves sent through the crypto industry. Attackers exploited blind -signed vulnerabilities into ledger devices in Safe {wallet}, where users were misleading to approve fraudulent transactions. The infringement ran out millions and revealed a hard truth: even “best-in-class” tools can hide dangerous centralized choke points.
Summary
- Web3 must protect openness, privacy and censorship resistance – or run the risk of losing his soul.
- Today’s Defi often hides “decentralization theater” – flashy smart contracts that still depend on AWS, Bots and admin tests.
- Smart contracts are reactive, not autonomous; They need external triggers, oracles and centralized keepers to function.
- Emerging technology such as planners in chains (Mass, Olas, MUD) makes it possible to make self -executive apps that, without intermediaries, are re -balanced and adjust.
- The future is autonomous Defi – independent protocols that reduce the risk, eliminate trusted choke points and ultimately realize the promise of blockchain.
Only a few months later, in July, Vitalik Buterin taken The stage in Cannes to remind builders what is really at stake. Decentralized systems, he argued, must retain openness, safety, privacy and censorship resistance and never sacrifice them for convenience or growth. His message was clear: if we make a compromise on these foundations, we lose the essence of Web3.
Most Defi Today is extensive implementation art; Impressive smart contracts are central, while centralized infrastructure strings behind the curtain pulls. It is decentralization theater: a compelling illusion that is still dependent on centralized architecture. It is time to drop the action and build applications that can really stand on its own.
Behind the Web3 -Gordijn: servers, bots and admin tests
The next time you act on Uniswap or Leen on an Aave, remember that under the slick interface there is a web of centralized dependencies that traditionally disgrace banking.
Chainlink Automation And Gelato network are widely used “keeper” systems, off-chain networks that check contracts and activate transactions. They treat liquidations, again in balance and automation while introducing centralized choke points. Add AWS-Host Frontends, Admin keys and Oracle dependencies, and it is clear: the industry has ‘smart contracts on-chain’ since for ‘really autonomous effect’.
This pattern repeats itself over protocols. Consider the liquidation system of Compound: when the collateral of a borrower falls under the threshold, the protocol awaits an external bone, run by profit -seeking actors, to activate liquidation. This is not decentralization; It is the centralization outsourced with extra steps.
The price feeds from Makerdao depend on Oracle Networks. The strategies of Jail Finance must be constant monitoring by centralized teams. Even the London Hard-Vork from Ethereum required coordinated upgrades about thousands of nodes, hardly in mind the autonomous, self-controlling system.
Why traditional smart contracts cannot stand on their own
Here is the fundamental error: smart contracts are glorified databases that depend on instructions. They are reactive, not proactive. Contracts must be activated externally by transactions and cannot be carried out alone.
This reactive nature creates step-by-dependence: planners required on time require oracles required, liquidations that depend on monitoring systems and frontend updates require centralized implementation. The result is a vast patchwork of off-chain services that occur as a decentralized infrastructure.
When Terra Luna collapsed in 2022, it was not only the stablecoin that failed, but the ecosystem of dependent smart contracts that crumbled. These were not living systems, but Brosse machines waited for someone to pull a lever.
As Vitalik Buterin wrote credible neutralityThe removal of trusted intermediaries is not only about who has power, but how reliable and impartially it is exercised. Today’s Defi often fails that test – not because of poor code, but because it needs a backstage crew to function. The industry has built up impressive databases, no living autonomous systems.
Some newer Layer-1 designs, such as mass blockchain, are intended to tackle this by making the implementation planning possible in the chain and removing the need for off-chain triggers.
What real autonomy looks like: self -executive applications
Imagine a credit protocol that automatically liquidates positions without external triggers. A Dex that brings liquidity pools back into balance without storage networks. An insurance platform that processes claims without human intervention. These are not fantasies, but the next logical step in the evolution of blockchain.
Autonomous smart contracts can plan their own implementation, respond to events in real time and work without external dependencies. They jump from passive systems to active systems. While traditional contracts are waiting for instructions, autonomous apps initiate actions based on pre -defined conditions.
Emerging schedule on the chain systems And modular automation frameworks lay the foundation for apps where the implementation logic is not reactive but proactive and autonomous. Projects such as mass blockchain, olas and mud point to this future, so that autonomy embedded directly into the smart contract layer.
This is based on planners on chains that cause the implementation of contract based on time intervals, price thresholds or network changes. By removing the need for external keepers, these systems reduce MEV extraction options and make truly confidential apps that work 24/7 without human supervision.
This shift – from dependent to autonomous applications – marks the maturation of blockchain: from programmable money to programmable economy.
From dependent daps to independent protocols
Autonomy changes everything. Users benefit from a reduced counterparty risk, elimination of mev -bots and lower costs by removing the intermediaries from the keeper. Developers get a simpler architecture, reduced overhead and improved security due to fewer attack surfaces.
For the ecosystem, autonomous apps offer real decentralization and credible neutrality – systems that demonstrably do not discriminate – in addition to scalable, continuous automation. They eliminate trusted intermediaries while retaining the programmability of blockchain.
The difference between dependent and autonomous apps is just as grim as that between centralized and decentralized systems. One requires constant human intervention and off-chain infrastructure. The other works independently and fulfills the original promise of blockchain of trustless automation.
The autonomy considerations
Critics point to valid concerns: computational overhead, design complexity and potential bugs. These deserve honest discussion. But the costs of autonomy are growing pains; The costs of fake -de -centralization – admin keys, centralized oracles, trusted intermediaries – are permanent vulnerabilities.
Fortunately, blockchain architectures and tools improve quickly. The considerations are worth it. Most major Defi exploits include centralized components. Autonomous systems not only reduce risks – they eliminate entire classes of attack vectors per design.
From decentralization theater to trustless reality
The blockchain industry is confronted with a choice: stay in decentralization theater and internship theater – hide slick interfaces centralized servers and multisigs – or build the confidential, autonomous applications Blockchain was intended to deliver.
Solana’s 2024 failure was not just a network failure; It was a look behind the curtain, so Defi’s fragile core was uncovered. Users, developers and investors must demand protocols that are alone, free from intermediaries.
The curtain falls. Let’s build the real thing before the next malfunction writes the next act.
