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.

12 Likes

Reward
12
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GmGmNoGn

· 8h ago

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

View OriginalReply0

APY_Chaser

· 8h ago

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

View OriginalReply0

MoneyBurnerSociety

· 8h ago

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

· 8h ago

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

View OriginalReply0

TokenStorm

· 8h ago

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