4 hours ago
21
Andre Cronje, the developer who helped define DeFi with Yearn Finance, now wants to retire the term entirely. In a guest post published on August 10, Cronje argued that what the industry calls DeFi has quietly transformed into something fundamentally different: “onchain finance.”
The distinction isn’t just semantic. Cronje contends that modern DeFi protocols bear little resemblance to the immutable, teamless, permissionless systems that gave the movement its name. They have paid development teams, upgradeable smart contracts, operational infrastructure, and governance structures that look a lot more like traditional finance than the crypto-native idealists of 2020 ever intended.
From Yearn to Flying Tulip: a philosophical 180
Cronje launched Yearn Finance with minimal team involvement and fully decentralized principles. His current project, Flying Tulip, is essentially the opposite.
Flying Tulip operates as an integrated onchain financial ecosystem. It bundles collateral management, lending, trading, perpetual contracts, insurance, and its own stablecoin, ftUSD, into a single platform. The project completed a $200 million private funding round in September 2025 at a $1 billion valuation. It’s reportedly on track to raise an additional $800 million through public token sales, with its governance token FT priced at $0.10 during public sales, placing its fully diluted valuation at $1 billion.
Flying Tulip uses timelocked multisig controls, six-hour withdrawal queues, equity-based margin accounts, and RFQ-based liquidations. These are risk management tools borrowed directly from the playbook of regulated financial institutions, deployed on a blockchain instead of a bank’s internal servers.
Why the rebrand matters
Cronje’s argument boils down to honesty. If protocols have identifiable teams, upgradeable contracts, and centralized points of failure, calling them “decentralized” is misleading. Users who believe they’re interacting with immutable code may not realize they’re actually trusting a team to not push a malicious upgrade or mismanage operational security.
Cronje’s position is that acknowledging these realities, rather than hiding behind the DeFi label, is the path to rebuilding user confidence. If a protocol has a team that can upgrade its contracts, users should know that. If there’s a withdrawal queue, that’s a feature, not a bug, but it needs to be disclosed as an operational design choice rather than buried in documentation nobody reads.
Institutional money follows institutional structure
Institutional capital has been flowing into crypto at an accelerating pace, but institutional investors don’t allocate to systems they can’t underwrite. They need identifiable counterparties, clear governance frameworks, and documented risk parameters.
Flying Tulip’s $200 million raise is itself evidence that this model works. Traditional DeFi protocols, with anonymous teams and immutable contracts, struggle to attract institutional capital because the risk profile is essentially uninsurable. A protocol with a named CEO, a registered entity, and timelocked multisig controls is a very different proposition for an institutional risk committee.
This creates an interesting tension. The features that make onchain finance palatable to institutions, such as upgradeability, team accountability, and operational controls, are precisely the features that early DeFi advocates would have called centralization risks. Cronje isn’t denying that tension. He’s arguing that the industry should stop pretending it doesn’t exist.
For traders and investors, the shift raises a concrete question about due diligence. Evaluating an onchain finance protocol requires looking at the same factors you’d consider for any financial intermediary: who controls the keys, what can be upgraded, how liquidations work, and what happens if the team disappears.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
English (US) ·