Source: cryptoslate
Compiled by: Blockchain Knight
The Crypto asset space is currently very fascinated by the concept of generative artificial intelligence and "Agents", which are allegedly powered by Crypto asset "orbits" and coordinated through on-chain smart contracts.
This is not a good way, for a simple reason: we cannot build "Agents" on the shifting sands of large language models (LLMs).
LLMs can play a role in creatively generating ideas and content (such as code), but the same creativity will manifest through malicious potential behaviors (i.e., deception).
Additionally, discussing quantum computing (i.e., the march towards post-quantum Crypto and "future-proof Crypto protocols") has become a fashion.
The elliptic curve Crypto technologies currently deployed do indeed have risks.
However, the remaining vast surface area is at most threatened by polynomial-scale attacks, and the application of quantum technology is likely to result in a rising tide lifting all boats.
The key is: real-world quantum computing is still decades away.
As we are drawn to these shiny new things, the core design priorities, choices, and trade-offs are constantly rusting, and may become "good enough" when we should be proactively re-examining them.
Here are 10 of them:
1. Social Consensus. If there is anything anachronistic in the Crypto ecosystem, the concept of "Social Consensus" is the prime example. Social Consensus is the way so-called community leaders manage their tribes; it has no place in 2025 Crypto protocols.
2. On-Chain Governance. After Social Consensus, what about On-Chain Governance? Is it too hard? Have we given up on it? Yet, we believe we can have AI Agents govern on-chain?
3. Miner Extractable Value. Is it now acceptable for miners and block proposers to extract revenue by manipulating the priority, exclusion, reordering, or alteration of transactions in blocks?
4. Oracle Problem. Has the Oracle Problem become a conventional wisdom, that it is an economic problem, not a technical one? Is this a collateral damage of the transition to "Proof of Stake"? Isn't this a slide back to pseudo-decentralization?
5. Centralized Stablecoins. Speaking of centralization, aren't centralized stablecoins essentially lightweight CBDCs? If Crypto assets' wheels are lubricated by (private) centralized stablecoins, why are we still "two-faced" towards (private) central banks?
6. No so-called Settlement Layer, no so-called L1 and L2. Any chain (including so-called L1 and alternative L1s) can become another chain's L2 by publishing ledger data and deploying bridging contracts. We must stop the confusion and clean up the terminology.
7. Privacy. At some point, we have lost the necessity of privacy protection. Perhaps the concept of "Privacy Pools" is the way Crypto protocols will ultimately balance regulatory compliance and privacy.
8. Rollups. In fact, Rollups are mini-blockchains. Sadly, Rollups are largely overlooked, and there are a host of issues: from multi-sig rug-pulls to centralized sequencers, MEV and CR, and everything in between. We need a comprehensive cleanup of the terminology and execution semantics around Rollups.
9. Centralized Accounting and Block Building. As "Proof of Stake" technology evolves, we will have to face increasing consolidation. With private order flows dominating, this will increasingly erode resistance to censorship. This brings us back to square one: permissionless and trustless, whither or wither? Or do we just not care as long as the numbers go up?
10. Public Goods Funding. The digital ascent has brought long-term challenges and issues in funding public goods. Crypto protocols play a unique and meaningful role in funding public goods, and this opportunity remains the most important one. We need to remind ourselves that this is a highly prioritized backlog item.
