Andre Cronje responds to LBI crash: I don't serve speculators
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Andre Cronje responds to LBI crash: I don't serve speculators
Even in failure, the value of trying is greater than what all critics believe it to be.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsWritten by: Andre Cronje
Translated by: TechFlow
On October 15, Andre Cronje, founder of yearn.finance (YFI), published an article responding to the recent sharp declines in YFI, LBI, and EMN. He stated that he has failed more times than succeeded in the crypto space. However, his focus is on providing architectural ideas for developers, not serving speculators. He emphasized that tokens are not stocks; in DeFi, tokens serve as coordination mechanisms. Holding these tokens should stem from a desire to be contributors, not mere observers.
According to Uniswap data, LBI’s price once surged above $0.07 but subsequently dropped nearly 94% to $0.0044 from its peak.
Below is the original text by Andre Cronje:
I don't serve speculators
Let me start with a brief statement—the above is all I have to say. I've been around in this space for a while now, and I've been wrong more often than right, failed more than succeeded. I've had conceptual ideas that failed in practice. I'm not building just to make numbers go up.
I build for developers. My core objective is tooling—enabling other developers to easily use or inherit the templates I design and build products upon them. I've mentioned multiple times in podcasts my concerns about misaligned incentives when speculators get involved. Those interviews contain further insights, which I won't delve into deeply here.
Tokens are not stocks
People treat tokens like stocks, but in DeFi, tokens are coordination mechanisms. You hold tokens because you want to be a contributor, not a spectator. The idea of a "community" creates friction—I believe it shouldn't be team vs. community, but rather contributors. There's no separation; they are one and the same.
Tokens, when designed for their specific system, do not care about price—that is irrelevant. What matters is 1=1. Whether the token trades externally at one cent or one dollar means nothing to the system.
Development process
"Testing in prod"—I'm starting to regret ever saying that. Anyone who's heard my interviews knows I always added warnings urging caution. It was meant to discourage people from using systems without doing their own research. That doesn’t mean I don’t test. Let me explain my development cycle:
Stage 1: Local testing—ensuring everything functions and works as intended.
Stage 2: Interaction testing—ensuring functionality under single-user interaction.
Stage 3: Composite testing—evaluating interactions between multiple parties.
Stage 4: Mock production—replicating the ETH mainnet, deploying contracts in simulation, and checking their interactions.
Stage 5: Integration testing (deployment to mainnet)—allowing real-world testing of transactions, gas limits, volume, and tool integrations.
Stage 6: Production deployment (coinciding with UI, media articles, and any documentation timed accordingly).
There are over 22 “yearns” on the ETH mainnet. Over 5 “YFIs.” Over 9 “v1 y-tokens.” Testing is iterative. I’ve discovered issues on mainnet that never appeared locally; I’ve failed to replicate mainnet systems locally; I’ve encountered bugs locally that I couldn’t reproduce on mainnet.
Even when we launched YFI, I did not incentivize ySwap—I felt the system was still too immature and didn’t want users exposed to the risks of providing liquidity to it. On the other hand, yTokens and yPools have existed since March and were well-tested and validated. They even went through multiple production cycles.
Project value
EMN is an economic exploit—its code functions exactly as designed. The contracts went through my standard testing cycle and were at stage 5. That day alone, I deployed approximately two different versions.
LBI is functioning as designed—it still is. I’m still actively using it to create a real-world example demonstrating how this template operates.
People conflate price with functionality. LBI is a perfect example: people bought LBI on Uniswap, driving up the price—a behavior irrational actors shouldn’t engage in. This led to a price drop, which some interpreted as LBI being a “failed” project. It isn’t. I’m still actively working on it. It will become the foundation of a larger product and may become part of the yearn brand (if they choose to adopt it).
I cannot represent yearn
I’m grateful to have been part of some amazing things, but I certainly didn’t create yearn. Consider how vast the ecosystem has become—consider all the websites, tools, newsletters, forums, Discord, Telegram, and active GitHub development. None of that was done by me. I’m merely a rapid prototyper, and I’ll continue being one.
The yearn team’s technical skills and capabilities far surpass mine. Anyone who thinks yearn is controlled, led, or dependent on me in any way is doing harm to yearn. I’m honored to be among greater contributors.
Responsibility
This is a delicate topic. But I think it largely stems from the first point I made in this article—a misalignment of target audience. As requested, I’ve stopped using Twitter. I’ve stopped deploying via my deployer account. Yet for LBI, this didn’t seem to prevent anything. I still don’t know how to proceed. I want to keep developing, deploying, and sharing what I build with other developers so we can collaborate and build more. I’ve clearly stated deployments are for developers and researchers. I even include full disclaimers in my deployments—but apparently, that’s still not enough. I’m currently conflicted about how to move forward.
Rational actors
This is a term frequently appearing in my discussions. I admit I was naive on this point. With EMN, I thought certain social actors created a narrative around it, thus attracting rational participants. LBI showed me I was completely wrong. Logically, I can’t understand why people would participate in something they don’t understand. I’m someone who never skips tutorials—how else could I play the game correctly? But I’ve now realized this isn’t true for part of DeFi. The openness of these systems is a double-edged sword. I have more thinking to do on this.
What lies ahead
I intend to keep building. Compared to three months ago, I see even more things today that need to be built—but I can’t do it alone. I need like-minded collaborators, teams to help pick up ideas and turn them into mature products. While I doubt the exact circumstances that unfolded around yearn will repeat themselves, that remains my hope.
There’s clearly a conflict present in the current space. I’m trying to succinctly articulate this conflict, but I don’t yet know how to truly resolve it.
But I believe this conflict is human, not technical. I don’t foresee ETH disappearing, nor builders stopping. I will continue building. Some things will work; others will fail. But I believe even in failure, the value of trying exceeds whatever critics might claim.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
