Andre Kronje says DeFi has taken on a new form

Andre Cronje believes that most of the so-called "DeFi" in the industry is no longer worthy of its name.

In Andre Cronje's view, a large part of what the industry continues to call "DeFi" is no longer worthy of its name. The founder of Flying Tulip prefers to use the term "on-chain finance" to describe projects where the company, team or committee still retains the power to intervene in agreements. How much decentralization commitment is left?

In short

Andre Cronje reserves the word DeFi for decentralized, immutable and unmediated protocols. According to DefiLlama data, between October 5, 2025 and August 13, 2026, the total locked value of DeFi dropped by 54.8%. While security measures protect users, they reintroduce roles that can modify or stop protocols.

Andre Cronje: DeFi has lost its original meaning

DeFi has not disappeared from the discussion. However, Andre Cronje believes it has shrunk significantly. This criticism coincides with the high concentration of DeFi governance previously reported by Cointerbune. Andre Cronje further pointed out that in his opinion, there are currently very few agreements that meet the strict definition of decentralized finance.

In a discussion broadcast on Platform X today, he set three standards: protocols must be decentralized, immutable, and unmediated. The term immutable here means that its rules cannot be unilaterally changed after being launched. However, his remarks highlighted the role of companies, risk teams and asset selectors. "I think DeFi no longer exists, except for some very small segments." Therefore, Cronje proposed another name: on-chain finance, or open finance. Operations are still recorded on the blockchain and publicly viewable, but the entire organization does not necessarily need to be decentralized. Therefore, a protocol can execute on-chain transactions while relying on an artificial group of key parameters.

Security measures reintroduce intermediaries into cycles

The problem is that this partial centralization does not necessarily stem from an intention to regain power from users. It also responds to a very realistic situation: Agreements sometimes manage billions of dollars in funds and may face loopholes, price manipulation or unexpected market behavior. At this point, waiting for a long governance process can be costly. Therefore, the team added security measures. Emergency suspensions, deposit caps, restrictions on certain assets, modifications to risk parameters: These tools prevent incidents from escalating. When vulnerabilities can drain agreement funds in minutes, rapid response is no trivial matter. But this safety net also raises another question: Who holds control? If only a few people can suspend withdrawals, change parameters, or decide which assets to accept, the "unmediated" argument becomes difficult to justify. Aave's controversial vote has shown that the boundaries between community, founders and operating teams remain blurred.

A working paper released by the European Central Bank in March provides a quantifiable basis. On Aave, MakerDAO, Ampleforth and Uniswap, the top 100 addresses hold more than 80% of governance tokens. However, the study is based on data from November 2022 and May 2023 and mainly measures the degree of governance concentration rather than the current degree of technological decentralization per protocol itself.

Market crisis makes debate more concrete

The discussion also took place in a context that was not favorable for DeFi. According to historical data from DefiLlama, the total locked value of the agreement dropped from US$165.71 billion on October 5, 2025 to US$74.96 billion on August 13, 2026. In just over ten months, nearly US$90.75 billion in funds flowed out of the field, a decrease of approximately 54.8%. This decline clearly cannot be attributed to protocol centralization. However, in times of great financial stress, the dilemma raised by Cronje becomes more pronounced. When markets reverse or agreements are threatened, teams tend to pursue speed. A committee that can modify parameters in minutes is more efficient at this time than a decentralized vote that may take days.

Cronje's statement is a strict definition rather than a proof that all innovation has disappeared. He himself admitted that there are a small number of "real DeFi" projects. For users, the right thing to do now is to see through the label: Who can modify codes, suspend withdrawals, or change parameters? Projects that claim no intermediaries operate must demonstrate that this promise can be fulfilled in times of crisis.