Why are the devs fighting each other? Are the devs actually fighting each other?

Lately, there has been a cycle of confusion bordering on pure FUD around the THORChain ecosystem. 

Market conditions throughout January have not helped, with many sitting on losses (or regretting not selling the highs). 

Same old story…

Luckily, we’re here to clear up much of the drama and realign the community with what’s happening.

Buckle up!

TLDR

• There is a debate among THORChain developers about the future direction of the protocol.
• The "progressives" want THORChain to keep innovating by expanding beyond cross-chain swaps to stay competitive. 
• The "traditionalists" believe it should stick to its original value proposition to avoid overextending resources.
• We are with the "progressives" on this. THORChain needs to keep innovating rather than risk falling behind.

Disclaimer: Not financial or investment advice. You are responsible for any capital-related decisions you make, and only you are accountable for the results. “One Glance” by Cryptonary sometimes uses the RR trading tool to help you quickly understand our analysis. They are not signals, and they are not financial advice.

Trouble in the camp?

There have been a lot of rumours and speculation that the THORChain ecosystem is at a crossroads. 

So, let’s simplify the situation. 

The bone of contention is centred around what THORChain should be and the direction its development should go.

On one side are the “traditionalists” who believe that THORChain should stick to its original value proposition - cross-chain swaps. They do not want to risk the underlying offering that THORChain is known for by stretching capital and liquidity across many protocols. 

On the other hand, you have the “progressives” who support expanding THORChain’s offering beyond just cross-chain swaps. They believe that making changes is how THORChain stays competitive. They support the development and launch of new THORFi products (like lending, savers, etc.)

We should be clear - generally, this is not an “us” versus “them” scenario. 

Ultimately, every contributor, dev, and node operator wants what they think is best for the protocol.

No major decision has been made; it’s only a matter of the conversation becoming heated.

These types of discussions are critical to a protocol's development.

 Every decision should be scrutinised, and no one party should have too much sway over the protocol’s future.

So, why all the FUD?

Really, there was no reason for the FUD cycle we witnessed over the last couple of weeks. 

It was a case of a few loud voices making a scene.

Throw in some additional confusion around LP rewards, and you have a perfect storm of confusion driving fear.

There were several issues with how LP rewards were being calculated, with some LPs expressing discontent about the numbers they saw on their screens and the actual rewards they received. Moving from the old system (LUVI, Liquidity Unit Value Index) to a simpler, earnings-based APR has mitigated concerns stemming from this source. 

Additionally, the community appears to have reached a consensus that the risks associated with lending, savers, and other THORFi products are not as pronounced as the FUD cycle was making them out to be.

An extremely helpful Twitter/X spaces by the THORChain team cleared up a lot of the FUD. 

We were never too concerned because we understood that most concerns were being blown out of proportion, but for many, hearing it directly from the devs calmed the situation and aligned many who were in doubt.

You can find a recording of the space here.

More reasons to stay bullish on THORChain

THORChain is currently the most valuable it has ever been in terms of product offering and token utility. No longer are LPs being subsidised through IL protection, funded by the sale of RUNE tokens. 

Volumes on THORChain have been ripping - the highest they’ve ever been.

Volumes are so high that certain parts of the protocol cannot keep up.

Just recently, the DOGE chain was paused as the mempool hit all-time highs.

None of these figures are indicative of an ecosystem that is heading for failure. 

Cryptonary’s take

Sometimes, the conversation in Web3 spaces can become heated - the same as in any other setting, whether in an office or DMs. That does not necessarily mean that the project is set for failure. 

Rather, it shows the passion and conviction those participating in the conversation have for the protocol’s future.

Where do we stand in the discussion?

We are in the camp of the “progressives.” 

Why?

To stay competitive in the crypto market requires constant innovation. 

You can sit on the safest protocol in the world, but eventually, someone else will take the risk and improve the offering so that users flock to them. 

Not taking risks is, in itself, a huge risk, especially in a fast-moving tech space like crypto. 

Look at Cardano, Bitcoin Cash, and Litecoin - the list of projects unwilling to innovate will eventually be left behind. 

We don’t want THORChain to be left behind, so we hope the progressives claim this round.

Cryptonary, OUT!