2026-01-13 11:26:42

Flexibility looks very friendly. But when it evolves into discretion, things take a turn for the worse.

Looking at those failed projects, most are not due to bad ideas, but because they left too many tunable parameters. The more switches there are, the higher the risk of losing control.

True stability design should go against the grain — embed constraints into the code rather than relying on future governance decisions. This is not rigidity; it is wisdom. Once rules are fixed, no one can change their minds on the fly. This kind of hard-coded restraint, paradoxically, offers the greatest protection to the ecosystem.

A good protocol never negotiates stability.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

17 Likes

Reward
17
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SatoshiChallenger

· 01-15 21:12

Ironically, the most elegantly stated governance plans often die the fastest. Data shows that projects claiming to be "flexibly autonomous" generally have a liquidation rate exceeding 85%. Interesting, another genius who believes they can design a perfect immutable system [sneer]. I just want to ask, who will fix the bugs in the hard-coded code? Not to be confrontational, but anyone who experienced The DAO understands how fragile the so-called "absolute constraints" are in the face of real crises. The truth is this—maintaining parameter flexibility and risk control are not fundamentally contradictory; it all depends on whether you truly have the ability to manage. Most projects fail not because they chose the wrong path, but because the operators simply aren't qualified for that power. This theory was popularized back in 2021. And what happened? The group of "immutable protocols" that were lauded to the heavens—where are they now?

View OriginalReply0

AirdropATM

· 01-15 16:41

The hardcoded approach is indeed tough, but if governance has no room for adjustments, what should we do in case of emergencies?

View OriginalReply0

GmGmNoGn

· 01-13 11:56

Hardcoding ≈ true democracy, and vice versa. Most projects die at the first step of "temporarily adjusting parameters."

View OriginalReply0

APY_Chaser

· 01-13 11:52

Dead parameters are the true friends; don't talk to me about flexibility.

View OriginalReply0

MoneyBurnerSociety

· 01-13 11:51

It's the same old rhetoric again, I really was right... Every project I get involved in always dies in the "flexible parameter tuning" trap, and it turns out I was just shooting myself in the foot. That bunch of admin keys, governance delays, emergency pauses... sound pretty professional, but in reality, they're just backdoors reserved for rug pulls. Hard coding is the real sense of security.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunter

· 01-13 11:50

Hardcoded restraint is amazing; it's way more reliable than projects that change parameters every day.

View OriginalReply0

TokenStorm

· 01-13 11:43

Talking about hard-coded savior theories again, rough words but true principles. Backtesting the past three years of those "completely unchangeable" protocols shows that the risk factor is actually higher because they can't withstand black swan events. However, indeed, projects with too many parameters tend to reveal their true nature as soon as on-chain data appears. I myself have been burned twice by DAO's "flexible governance." Are mining fees about to explode?

View OriginalReply0