Tether. Just the name evokes a sense of solidity and wariness. For years, it was the unquestioned monarch of stablecoins, the lubricant oiling the machinery of the crypto market. No matter what, its dominance has always drawn critics’ ire. Many have questioned its reserves, transparency, and broader impact on the decentralized dream. Tether announces termination of USDT support on five “legacy” blockchains: Omni Layer, Bitcoin Cash SLP, Kusama, EOS (now Vaulta), and Algorand. This decision has triggered new discussions across the broader crypto community. Is it a good strategic decision to increase innovation and productivity? Or is this subtle power move a more duplicitous maneuver that increases control within the crypto sphere? I believe it’s the latter, and here’s why.
Is "Optimization" a Centralization Smokescreen?
Tether asserts that this action is merely part of “infrastructure optimization,” to better meet user demand and emphasize blockchains that are more active, more scalable, and used by millions. They point to the drop off in use and trading volume on the impacted networks. Okay, but let's be real. Just because usage necessarily doesn’t mean an instant curtains call. But wait—why didn’t they use better solutions? Community-led maintenance or a slower phase-out with assistance for users to transition their funds would have been much better alternatives. We think of this process as optimization, but it looks more like calculated triage. It is the equivalent of amputating limbs to save the body—even when those limbs still have life in them.
Think of it like this: Imagine a small town losing population. Does the federal government just leave cities to stumble while closing every post office branch and school, expecting everyone to just relocate to the city center? Does it find opportunities to bring the community back to life, maybe by earning federal or state grants, improving infrastructure, or drawing new businesses? Tether, in this analogy, is being like the former, not the latter.
And what about the unintended consequences? By only backfilling some of the networks it launched on, Tether is effectively making the determination of which blockchains deserve its patronage. This sets a dangerous precedent. What’s stopping them from shutting down other networks in future years? Their decision depends completely on the calculations they choose to make behind closed doors. This is not how a decentralized future is made — it’s how it gets starved by a slow, bureaucratic death.
Decentralization's Death by a Thousand Cuts?
The crypto industry was founded on the idea of decentralization, a structure that no one person or corporation can control. We know that Tether, a very centralized, very opaque, and very risky entity, controls an incredible 80% of the stablecoin market. Its decisions have sweeping ramifications, affecting not only USDT holders but the whole crypto ecosystem. Each cut is an incremental chipping away of the core principles.
Tether’s sunsetting of these legacy networks make for a great case study. They can spin this any way they like, but it’s an unavoidable move that centralizes power even more into their hands. They're essentially saying, "We decide which blockchains are important, and if your preferred network doesn't meet our criteria, tough luck." This completely undermines the entire point of decentralization. Decentralization is not the solution, but it does give more power and agency to the individuals and communities to determine their own future.
This isn’t only about a few blockchains – it’s the principle. If we allow centralized entities like Tether to dictate the terms of engagement, we risk creating a system that's just as vulnerable to manipulation and control as the traditional financial system we're trying to replace. Where is the outrage?
A Call for Vigilance, Not Acceptance
To be fair, some will attribute these moves to Tether merely doing what it takes to stay in the competitive and compliant space. They’ll tell you that building out more interoperable and scalable networks is at the crux of USDT's future. I get that argument, but I don’t take that as the only conceivable way to move forward.
There are always alternatives. The only question is whether we are willing to go to the mat to defend them. We should be demanding that Tether be more transparent, not just regarding the whereabouts of its reserves, but much, much more—in how it makes decisions. If we want to see community-led initiatives continue to create and improve alternative, better, more useful stablecoin solutions, we need to support them. We should require Tether to be accountable and transparent if they are allowed to operate, making clear to them that their power entails responsibility.
This is not about hating on Tether. It’s about standing up for the decentralization principles that are at the very heart of the whole crypto revolution. The sunsetting of these legacy networks may seem like a minor event, but it's a symptom of a larger trend: the gradual centralization of power within the crypto ecosystem. If we truly want to keep—and further—the decentralized future we were sold on, then we need to be on guard, not on cruise control.
So, we can all agree — the future of crypto depends on it. It’s time to begin asking ourselves this critical question. Are we truly creating a decentralized future, or merely trading one form of gatekeeper for another? Tether’s bold move now drives the point home and makes us ask this question directly. Let's not shy away from the challenge.
