DeFi Protocols as Unlicensed Utilities
DeFi loves to call itself infrastructure. Neutral. Permissionless. Always on.
Cool. Then let’s finish the thought.
Liquidity pools don’t behave like startups. They behave like utilities.
A Uniswap pool is closer to a power grid than a fintech app.
<It routes economic energy.
<It balances the load.
<It fails catastrophically when stressed.
And when it goes dark, entire neighborhoods of protocols go with it.
Yet unlike power grids, DeFi utilities operate with zero duty of care.
No uptime guarantees.
>No responsibility for cascading failures.
>No obligation to protect the people plugged into them.
Just vibes.
Liquidity Is Infrastructure, Not a Feature
LPs are told they’re “providing liquidity.” That sounds optional, almost casual—like lending a charger.
In reality, they are underwriting systemic risk. When a major pool drains or misprices, it doesn’t just hurt LPs. It breaks lending markets, nukes derivatives, and liquidates users who never touched that pool directly.
That’s not a marketplace. That’s critical infrastructure pretending to be a side hustle.
In TradFi, anything this central would be regulated into submission. In DeFi, we pretend decentralization is a force field that magically absorbs blame.
It isn’t.
“It Can’t Go Down” Is a Claim, Not a Vibe
DeFi protocols constantly market themselves as unstoppable:
- “Always on”
- “Immutable”
- “Censorship-resistant”
Fine. But if something cannot go down, then it cannot be irresponsible.
You don’t get both.
Utilities are boring for a reason. They are designed around failure, redundancy, and accountability. DeFi, by contrast, is designed around plausible deniability. When things break, blame is diffused across DAOs, governance forums, and Discord moderators with anime avatars.
That’s not decentralization. That’s liability laundering.
The Missing Layer: Responsibility
This isn’t a call for regulators to parachute in and ruin the fun. It’s a call for DeFi to grow up.
If a protocol functions like a utility, it should:
- Explicitly define failure modes
- Price systemic risk, not just yield
- Assign responsibility—even if collectively
Right now, DeFi wants the cultural prestige of infrastructure without the ethical weight of maintaining it.
That won’t last.
The Inevitable Reckoning
Users already treat core DeFi protocols like utilities.
>They assume uptime.
>They assume safety.
>They assume someone is watching the lights.
But no one is.
And here’s the uncomfortable truth: the more DeFi succeeds, the less this ambiguity is tolerated. Either protocols evolve internal standards of care, or responsibility will be imposed from the outside, and it will be uglier than anyone wants.
If it can’t go down, someone should be responsible.
That’s not anti-DeFi.
That’s pro-reality.
