I think it’s time for an honest reset — not just of the project’s strategy, but of the way we’ve been governing and evaluating it.
We were very critical of the direction set by the Nethermind report, which defined much of the current strategic roadmap for dYdX. Unfortunately, the results have validated many of those early concerns. The data and the current state of the project clearly show that the chosen path has not produced the desired outcomes.
But beyond the technical or product issues, the governance process itself has also failed. Every major decision — including those derived from the Nethermind strategy — was fully supported by the delegates. That means we all share responsibility for where we are today.
As token holders and as delegates, we must take accountability for the choices we make: who we delegate to, how we vote, and whether we do so critically or simply to maintain alignment with leadership and avoid losing delegated support. Governance is not supposed to be a rubber stamp; it should be a system of checks, balance, and open debate.
For a long time, many of us have been sharing constructive feedback and proposing alternative ideas, but they have rarely been heard — or worse, they’ve been perceived as attacks rather than as opportunities to improve. This culture of justification instead of evaluation is at the root of the problem.
dYdX has strong fundamentals and enormous potential. But to unlock it, we need to put the project itself — not egos, not alliances, not old decisions — at the center. It’s time to make decisions based on data, results, and the best available ideas, wherever they come from.
Perhaps the first step toward that reset is to rethink who we delegate to, ensuring that our representatives bring independence, critical thinking, and the courage to question — not just to agree.