The Problem With Anons: Accountability in Web3

Hey you, yes you, sitting behind that rosy computer screen. What is your name? Grant Nathan or Punk #4315 — if the latter, sweet NFT, but you’re killing me man!

Anons have become embedded into crypto culture. They are ubiquitous on Twitter, forums, and now events with many individuals going by pseudonymous names.

To the “John”, who I met at Solana Hacker House in NYC — I know that’s not your real name…to the 0xSpicy spitting venom on forums, why so mean?

So who are these anons? Why are they becoming so ubiquitous? And why is this a problem?

Let’s dig in.

The rise of anonymous identities has to do with the origins of crypto — specifically the leading asset: Bitcoin.

Founded in 2008 as a response to the global economic crisis, Satoshi Nakamoto was hailed as the pioneer and creator of this transformative technology.

Satoshi was a pseudonym, with images on Google populating as a Japanese man.

While others debate the true identity of Nakamoto — a man or woman, cat or elephant, individual or group — troves of imposters have cropped up in his vein.

Except they aren’t founders.

They aren’t liable for millions of dollars or a new economic system — they are merely participants, but rarely important ones.

People are no longer anon for legal reasons — they’re embracing a new liberty that affords them an escape from the social pressures of their IRL identity.

Sure, there are reasons why they may choose this path, but it’s also creating a host of issues that are negatively affecting the long-term success of crypto.

Well now that that’s out and I’m apt to get an army on Twitter after me — let’s get into the details of why.

The Problems with Anons

Anons impede broader adoption

What is the goal of crypto in its current state?

To me, it is to increase adoption while focusing on security and stability. Thinking about where the next $1,000,000,000+ will come from — many defer to institutions; this progression feels right.

But will institutions feel secure trusting an environment of NFT Twitter profiles claiming net worths above $1,000,000? Their claims may be true, but my answer — is no, they will not.

Anons deter adoption. It makes us feel like the critiques crypto has always received:

“Opaque” “Shadowy” “Untraceable”

While these takes are uninformed, anons are not helping us change them.

Billion-dollar organizations require trust and transparency — they don’t care about allure, or “fun,” nor personal liberties — they demand competitive returns and verifiable facts.

With pseudonymous identities — facts are hard to decipher.

They lack accountability

Why do we like anons? To me, it’s the uncertainty.

Behind an NFT PFP could be Leonardo DiCaprio with an astonishing amount of crypto knowledge, Zhu Su’s second account pontificating, or a mere teenager from Illinois.

While I fear it is often not the former, this allure and mystery are felt by every DeFi participant who has faced an anon. Who is this person? What is their agenda?

It’s intimidating — with some holding their words or fearing repercussions.

Anons are cutthroat. They lack accountability — take a look at the Hop forums today.

Brute takes are important for decision making but let’s not create a culture where they can only exist under a new account or catchy name.

Is this helpful?

While “Babbyy” really garners my attention, this type of comment rarely furthers the discussion.

It may be the proposing project capitalizing on lax forum rules or passionate retail investors who see an opportunity to veil themselves as the most powerful.

They make it harder to get things done

Jumping in and out of forums as they please — Anons make it difficult on the operational side of DAO growth and management.

If dancing through the details with NewBlueGoose — where am I supposed to find him on discord? Where do I send a Zoom call?

This is also true of Multi-Sigs — a core piece of a DAO’s identity. What happens if they’re not around? QL-crypto — yes you, you’ve been a bit hard to find for our last signature.

Take Wonderland for example too — 0xSifu, a core signer of the multi-sig was a previously convicted felon, controlling ⅕ of the keys.

Upon realizing his past life it took 2 days to replace this signer — yet previously yielded the power and influence to change the entire trajectory of the DAO.

Ultimately, the risk of anonymity, particularly in DAOs, is multi-dimensional. Who is this person? Are they going to be around when we need them? Are they legit or a liability?

As DAOs and crypto orgs continue to grow, the importance of reliability increases along with it — we must be vigilant in assessing anon’s roles.

Making A Case For Anons

However, they have their place.

Hasu, Flood, Zachxbt, and Fatman are a few which come to mind. Banksy. They are anon and provide real value, with legitimate reasons such as personal safety to be anon.

It is powerful — able to turn on and off as they please.

I acknowledge the worth of anons — especially as founders or in countries with more strict regulations against cryptocurrency.

It’s not that they’re anon — it’s the lack of accountability that makes them become brash.

The Case For A Real Identity

People forget that we are all humans. We have emotions and feelings — and we are bestowed with the responsibility to grow this ecosystem.

It’s a massive responsibility — and massive upside when it succeeds.

But if you’re anon I ask one thing. Have a doxxed account — and use it. We must display the humans, the intelligence, and the competence which makes this thing special.

Only then, will the next wave of adoption come crashing on the growing shores of Web3.