PassionPlanet @passionplanet1 - Twitter Profile

Pinned Tweet

2 months ago

It is completely fair to raise questions about governance, admin controls, auditability, and risk. @ICPTokens That kind of scrutiny is healthy. No serious builder on the IC should be above it. What feels off here is not the existence of criticism; it is the posture around it. If you are going to present yourself as a serious analytics platform serving the public square, then direct engagement should come before public theater, especially when the issue is integration, representation of market depth, and interpretation of technical tradeoffs. Instead, this came off like a platform trying to sound like a large neutral institution while operating more like a lightly maintained product with a strong opinion page. That is the professionalism gap people are reacting to. For example, if your stated goal is accurate analytics for the IC ecosystem, then refusing to include Party LPs means you are knowingly presenting an incomplete picture of liquidity depth while also claiming to be protecting users through rigor. Maybe that is your right, but let’s at least be honest about what that means. You are not just “evaluating risk,” you are shaping market visibility and ecosystem perception. That is influence, not just analysis. And if you are going to exercise that influence publicly, then the bar for process should be higher than posting a position statement and acting like that alone settles the matter. A serious process would have included direct dialogue with Theo or Party before turning the disagreement into a public declaration. A serious process would acknowledge that much of this ecosystem is built through evolving trust, staged decentralization, practical admin controls, and founder-led iteration. A serious process would distinguish between “this is a risk to monitor” and “this venue does not deserve representation.” Those are not the same statement. What also makes this land poorly is the selective tone of purity. The IC ecosystem is not exactly lacking projects with concentrated control, admin authority, governance capture, questionable treasury behavior, weak execution, or products that raised meaningful capital while shipping very little. That is not a controversial statement; that is just reality. So if the standard is now strict decentralization purity, apply it evenly across the board. If the standard is practical market usefulness plus visible disclosure of risk, apply that evenly too. But selectively taking a hard line here, in public, while the broader ecosystem is filled with far messier situations, does not read like neutral analysis. It reads like selective enforcement. And selective enforcement always raises questions. To be clear, I am not saying PartyDEX should be immune from criticism. It should not. Governance matters. Audits matter. Admin methods matter. Custody, control, and backend flexibility all matter. These are legitimate issues. But there is also a difference between exposing risk and using risk language as a branding weapon. That distinction matters too. Because what Theo is actually doing, whether people like every design choice or not, is building. He is trying to push forward a different trading experience, a different balance between user agency and execution, and a structure that combines order book logic with LP functionality in a way that people in this ecosystem have clearly been hungry for. That is not trivial. That is not disposable. And it should not be waved away by a platform whose own frontend and backend could be recreated in countless forms with more functionality by any number of capable teams. That is where the tone starts to feel less like stewardship and more like self-importance. If the goal was really ecosystem health, the first move would have been conversation. If the goal was responsible transparency, the tone would have been less theatrical and more collaborative. If the goal was accuracy, then leaving out meaningful liquidity while claiming to represent the market deserves criticism too. So yes, question PartyDEX. Absolutely. But if you are going to act like a referee in the public square, then people are going to evaluate your neutrality, your consistency, your process, and your own professionalism, too. That scrutiny cuts both ways. https://t.co/FOKjvp6SbB

2

26

5

0

4K

PassionPlanet

@PassionPlanet1

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users