Disclosure: The perspectives presented here are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of crypto.news’ editorial team.
In February 2025, the ByBit hack shook the crypto world. Attackers took advantage ofblind-signing vulnerabilities in Ledger devices and injected harmful code into Safe {Wallet}’s interface, misleading users into authorizing fraudulent transactions. The incident drained millions and unveiled a stark reality: even “top-notch” tools can mask perilous centralized bottlenecks.
Summary
- Web3 must uphold principles of openness, privacy, and resistance to censorship — or risk losing its core essence.
- Today’s DeFi often showcases “decentralization theater” — impressive smart contracts still depend on AWS, bots, and admin keys.
- Smart contracts are reactive rather than autonomous; they require external triggers, oracles, and centralized keepers to function.
- New technologies like on-chain schedulers (Massa, Olas, MUD) enable self-operating applications that liquidate, rebalance, and adjust without intermediaries.
- The future lies in autonomous DeFi — independent protocols that minimize risk, remove trusted choke points, and fulfill blockchain’s original promise.
A few months later, in July, Vitalik Buterin took the stage in Cannes to urge builders to recognize what’s genuinely at stake. Decentralized systems, he asserted, must maintain values of openness, security, privacy, and resistance to censorship, never sacrificing them for convenience or growth. His message was unmistakable: compromising these principles risks losing the very spirit of web3.
Much of today’s DeFi resembles elaborate performance art; mesmerising smart contracts take the spotlight while centralized infrastructure operates silently behind the scenes. It’s a theater of decentralization: a captivating façade that still relies on centralized frameworks. It’s high time to eliminate the illusion and develop applications that can genuinely operate independently.
Behind the web3 curtain: Servers, bots, and admin keys
Next time you trade on Uniswap or lend on Aave, reflect on the fact that beneath the sleek interface lies a tangled web of centralized dependencies that embarrasses traditional banking.
Chainlink Automation and Gelato Network are common “keeper” mechanisms, off-chain networks that supervise contracts and instigate transactions. They manage liquidations, rebalancing, and automation while creating centralized choke points. Combine AWS-hosted frontends, admin keys, and oracle dependencies, and it becomes clear: the industry has misinterpreted “smart contracts on-chain” as “truly autonomous operation.”
This pattern is echoed across various protocols. Take Compound’s liquidation mechanism: when a borrower’s collateral dips below the threshold, the protocol waits for an external bot, operated by profit-driven players, to activate liquidation. This is not decentralization; it’s centralization outsourced with additional steps.
MakerDAO’s price feeds depend on oracle networks. Yearn Finance’s strategies necessitate continual oversight by centralized teams. Even Ethereum’s London hard fork required synchronized upgrades across thousands of nodes, hardly representing the autonomous, self-governing system that was envisioned.
Why traditional smart contracts can’t stand alone
The core issue lies in this: smart contracts are glorified databases dependent on specific instructions. They are reactive, not proactive. Contracts must be externally triggered by transactions and cannot operate autonomously.
This reactive nature breeds cascading dependencies: time-based operations require schedulers, price feeds rely on oracles, liquidations necessitate monitoring systems, and frontend updates demand centralized deployment. The outcome is a sprawling patchwork of off-chain services masquerading as decentralized infrastructure.
When Terra Luna collapsed in 2022, it wasn’t solely the stablecoin that failed but the ecosystem of reliant smart contracts that disintegrated. These were not living systems but fragile machines awaiting someone to engage the lever.
As Vitalik Buterin noted regarding credible neutrality, eliminating trusted intermediaries is not just about power distribution but how reliably and fairly that power is exercised. Today’s DeFi frequently flunks this standard — not due to flawed code but because it is dependent on a backstage crew to function. The industry has been crafting impressive databases, not living, autonomous systems.
Emerging layer-1 designs, such as the Massa blockchain, aim to rectify this by facilitating on-chain execution scheduling, negating the necessity for off-chain triggers.
What true autonomy looks like: Self-executing applications
Picture a lending protocol that liquidates positions without needing external prompts. A DEX that rebalances liquidity pools independently of keeper networks. An insurance platform that adjudicates claims without human involvement. These aren’t mere dreams but the next logical evolution of blockchain.
Autonomous smart contracts can plan their execution, react to real-time events, and operate without outside dependencies. They transition from passive to active systems. While traditional contracts await instructions, autonomous applications initiate actions based on set conditions.
Emerging on-chain scheduling systems and modular automation frameworks are establishing a foundation for applications where execution logic is proactive rather than reactive and autonomous. Projects such as Massa blockchain, Olas, and MUD signal this future, embedding autonomy directly into the smart contract level.
This depends on on-chain schedulers that activate contract execution according to time intervals, price limits, or changes in the network. By eradicating the need for external keepers, these systems lower MEV extraction opportunities and empower genuinely trustless applications functioning continuously without human supervision.
This transition — from dependent to autonomous applications — marks the maturation of blockchain: evolving from programmable money to programmable economics.
From dependent dApps to independent protocols
Autonomy transforms everything. Users gain from decreased counterparty risk, elimination of MEV bots, and lower fees through the removal of intermediary keepers. Developers enjoy simpler architectures, reduced overhead, and enhanced security via fewer vulnerabilities.
For the ecosystem, autonomous applications provide authentic decentralization and credible neutrality — systems that undeniably don’t discriminate — along with scalable, continual automation. They remove trusted intermediaries while preserving blockchain’s programmability.
The distinction between dependent and autonomous applications is as pronounced as that between centralized and decentralized systems. One necessitates constant human engagement and off-chain infrastructure. The other operates independently, delivering on blockchain’s initial promise of trustless automation.
The autonomy tradeoffs
Critics raise legitimate concerns: computational demands, design intricacy, and the potential for bugs. These warrant sincere discussion. However, the costs associated with autonomy are growing pains; the expenses of deceptive decentralization — admin keys, centralized oracles, trusted intermediaries — constitute lasting vulnerabilities.
Fortunately, blockchain architectures and tools are improving swiftly. The trade-offs are justified. Most significant DeFi breaches involve centralized components. Autonomous systems not only mitigate risks — they eradicate entire categories of attack vectors by design.
From decentralization theater to trustless reality
The blockchain industry faces a critical choice: continue performing decentralization theater — polished interfaces masking centralized servers and multisigs — or develop the trustless, autonomous applications that blockchain was conceived to provide.
Solana’s 2024 outage was not merely a network failure; it revealed the fragile core of DeFi. Users, developers, and investors must demand protocols that can function autonomously, unencumbered by intermediaries.
The curtain is descending. Let’s create the authentic article before the next outage scripts the next performance.
