The world of crypto was built on the promise of decentralisation and eliminating the need for centralised authorities like banks. And yet, ever since its inception, this field has been besieged by bad reputation: scams, rug pulls, and the like have cost people a lot of money and undermined the trust in the industry. Very often, people who suffered financial losses had no idea who to turn to to try and get their money back.
While decentralisation may be a core principle treasured by true crypto-lovers, the reality is that trust is essential for the mass adoption of anything. And this is doubly true when finances are involved. People see their money as very important – because of course they do – and want to know who can be held responsible when things go wrong.
The question stands, then: without clear accountability, can the crypto industry ever become mainstream?
Decentralisation and Trust Do Not Go Hand-in-Hand
At its core, decentralisation means removing intermediaries, allowing users to transact directly without a governing entity overseeing everything. In theory, this creates a fairer, more transparent financial system.
In practice, however, it introduces ambiguity around responsibility. In traditional finance, a clear structure can be traced, with banks and regulators providing oversight and consumer protection. But the crypto industry doesn’t have such accountability practices. And this difference becomes extremely evident when major scandals arise.
2022 was a particularly bad year in that regard, with negative events following one after another and spiralling out of control. First, the Terra-Luna crash resulted in around $400 billion of funds lost, causing countless people to tear out their hair and leading to greater regulatory scrutiny as accusations of Ponzi schemes and rug pulls flew all over the place.
Then the crypto lender Celsius collapsed and filed for bankruptcy, owing about $5 billion to its users. And it was only at the end of 2024 that the company was able to emerge back from this state, commencing repayments.
Naturally, we can’t not mention the FTX case, which could very well be called one of the worst disasters in the whole history of crypto. Reports of bad business practices, lack of proper financial controls, and misuse of client funds were already bad enough, but when the platform went under, it caused a ripple effect throughout the whole industry.
Governments worldwide began to crack down hard on crypto platforms. U.S. regulators sued Binance, Coinbase, and Kraken for various compliance violations. Crypto-friendly banks like Silvergate and Signature had to close down due to FTX-related liquidity issues and harsher regulatory scrutiny.
And as if Sam Bankman-Fried’s resignation and imprisonment weren’t enough, in 2023, Binance’s Chanpeng Zhao followed in his footsteps in yet another large-scale legal case that shook the sector.
All of these scandals paint a clear picture: that while decentralisation is a nice ideal, without proper oversight and clear accountability things can go sideways all too easily. The crypto industry is different from TradFi in many ways, but it still revolves around influential figures and brand image. When that image is tarnished, the reputation of the whole industry suffers in turn.
This is why, to my mind, the role of leadership is of paramount importance if we wish to talk about mainstream adoption.
Leadership in Crypto: Contradiction or Necessity?
The way I see it, the crypto industry’s resistance to central figures seems at odds with human psychology. People naturally gravitate toward leaders — figures who can provide guidance and stability. Someone you know you can turn to when you need to have your concerns alleviated.
Even in decentralised ecosystems, leadership matters. Here’s a clear example from recent history. When a couple of weeks ago the Ethereum Foundation was facing shakeups and public pressure about its leadership, Vitalik Buterin emerged as a key voice. He condemned harassing behaviour from some among the community towards his team and clearly affirmed his sole authority and executive control over EF’s leadership structure. This is an obvious indicator of why you need visible figures in positions of authority to help regulate matters.
This is a peculiar contradiction: while the crypto industry promotes decentralisation and a permissionless approach, it cannot escape the need for credible leadership that can take control of things when it becomes necessary. Without it, trust remains elusive, and it naturally prevents broader adoption.
The industry’s history is riddled with scandals and cautionary tales that damaged its credibility. Every major controversy reinforces the perception that crypto is a risky, unregulated space. People have a tendency of hyper-focusing on the bad over the good. And while technological advancements within crypto are very much real, they often take a backseat to high-profile failures.
Founders and industry leaders play a crucial role in shaping public perception of any business and, by extent, help shape the perception of the industry as a whole. A strong leader can build confidence in others, and that is why I believe that effective communication is always going to be of key importance.
Crypto leaders must strike a balance between maintaining the ethos of decentralisation while ensuring transparency and accountability. Clear messaging and open dialogue with users are necessary, as well as proactive crisis management.
As ironic as it may sound, even a “trustless” ecosystem needs trust.
Accountability as a Path Forward
Now, mind you, addressing trust issues doesn’t necessarily mean abandoning decentralisation completely, but it is going to need a re-work. Projects in this space have to change up their approaches and put greater emphasis on credibility and responsibility.
Projects should openly communicate their decision-making processes, security measures, and financial health. This can be achieved through public audits and regular updates to their communities. If a hack or some other incident occurs, it is of critical importance to address concerns immediately. Instead of trying to sidestep the issue, acknowledge it openly and take responsibility for fixing things. People remember this sort of thing.
Regulatory cooperation also plays an important part. While crypto was built to operate outside traditional financial systems, it’s pretty clear by now that global watchdogs won’t just leave this space be. It’s no longer a fringe “toy” for technophiles, since even large-scale institutional investors keep taking interest in digital assets.
So engaging with regulators and working out new rules and best practices can provide a sense of legitimacy to the industry. And it can also reassure new users that come from non-crypto background, reducing fears of fraud and instability.
Finally, crypto leaders must acknowledge their influence and wield it responsibly, fostering trust without creating centralised control. This means ensuring that communities are either involved in decision-making processes or are at least aware of how they happen.
Conclusion: Striking a Balance for Mass Adoption
To reiterate everything I’ve said so far: decentralisation is a powerful ideal, but the reality is that most people seek trust and accountability that can only be provided by central figures. And for crypto to thrive, it must acknowledge that transparent leadership and business practices are essential to credibility.
The industry’s future will depend on its ability to foster trust. Without this, mainstream adoption will remain a goal ever out of sight.