
Yearn Finance founder Andre Cronje suggests he did not mishandle the Eminence (EMN) projectâs economic exploit, which he insists functions well. He accuses certain social actors of creating a story around EMN that caused rational actors to jump onto the token. Cronjeâs comments follow reports that a group of defi community members planning to sue the smart contract builder whom they say is culpable in the $15 million EMN token hack.
Cronje Says He Is Not Infallible
In a post on Medium, Cronje who has vowed not to use his Twitter account, talks of his role and the journey which he says has had both failures and successes. In what may seem like an attempt to absolve himself, Cronje writes:
âIâve been wrong more times than Iâve been right, Iâve failed more times than Iâve succeeded. Iâve had conceptual ideas that failed in practice. I do not build to make a number go up.â? Cronje appears to lament the involvement of speculators and how this distracts from the main objectives of building useful tools.
The Yearn founder then claims that Defi tokens are not the same as stocks. He says although âpeople treat them like stocks, in Defi, tokens are a coordination mechanism.â? He says possession of tokens should signal that one âwants to become a contributor and not a bystander.â?
Speculators Ruining Defi
Meanwhile, Cronje also clarifies that the apparent distinction between a team (devs) and the community, which he says is the source of friction, should not exist.
âThere is no separation, they are one and the same,â? elaborates Cronje who now says he did not create Yearn.
The Yearn founder then briefly zeroes in on the botched EMN token whose code he says âfunctioned as designed.â?
Defending himself further, Cronje explains:
âThe contracts went through my normal testing cycles and were at stage 5, on that day alone I had deployed ~2 different versions. LBI is working as intended, it still is, and I am still using it to create a real-world example of how such templates function.â?
Instead, the Yearn founder blames people that confuse price with functionality. He points to LBI as the perfect example where âpeople bought it off Uniswap, inflating the price, something that a rational actor that understood how the system worked should never have done.â?
Liquidity Income (LBI) is Cronjeâs latest experiment that was rolled out on October 13 as an âunfinished product meant for research purposes.â?
Despite the warnings and the fact that Cronje did not use a Twitter account to announce the latest experiment, users still deposited ETH into this unaudited contract. It is on this basis that Cronje attempts to exonerate himself from the actions of irrational actors although he admits he was ânaive.â?
Balancing Between Developers and Ordinary Users
Meanwhile, Cronjeâs remarks about tokens being different from stocks appear to be getting support from others within the defi community. One of those concurring with Cronje is Daniel Dabek whose organization Safex.org, launched a token in 2015 which is âused to become a member of a decentralized board of trade.â? From the small amount initially raised ($50,000), the Dabek says they âevolved over these years into an entire blockchain network from scratch.â?
Still, just like Cronje who sees a âconflict in the spaceâ? Dabek also speaks of the challenges faced when trying to balance between getting people interested and building tools:
âIt is one thing to make the tools, another to put them in peopleâs hands to be empowered.â?
Meanwhile, besides attempting to clear his name, Cronje does not directly address reports of the impending lawsuit. Instead, he says he will continue to build.
What do you think of Andre Cronjeâs comments? Share your views in the comments section below.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.