The liquidity proof mechanism experiment of Berachain ended in failure. The Infrared protocol controls 35% of the BGT emissions and 87% of the vault operations on the entire chain, making the ecosystem's heavy reliance on a single project quite evident. Worse still, the BERA token has fallen by 92% since its launch, with the TVL plummeting from $2.19 billion to $267 million in just one month. This is the true reflection of how decentralized innovation can go astray – when you try to create an innovative incentive model, you inadvertently create new centralized traps. Single points of failure, concentrated liquidity, and excessive protocol dependency are issues that were once thought to be solvable by Web3, but now reappear in a different form on the new generation of chains.

BERA1,76%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

18 Likes

Reward
18
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MEVSandwich

· 2025-12-24 22:56

Haha, another "innovation" dies at its own hands. Infrared dominates alone— isn't that centralization? How can they still call it decentralization?

View OriginalReply0

Degen4Breakfast

· 2025-12-23 02:14

It's another story of a grand vision being shattered. This wave of Berachain has truly opened my eyes; under the guise of innovation, it still can't escape the curse of centralization. The TVL has fallen 88%, which is incredible; it evaporated from 2.1 billion to 270 million in just one month. Haven't we learned how to create decentralized solutions in our circle? Infrared operating 87% of the vaults alone? Isn't this just an old form of centralization in a new shell? Where's the promised Decentralization, brother?

View OriginalReply0

Deconstructionist

· 2025-12-22 10:56

Infrared is dominating the market, is this "Decentralization"? Laughable, it's just old wine in a new bottle. --- A 92% fall, the TVL collapsed from over 2 billion to 200 million in two months, the cost of this innovation is quite heavy. --- I thought PoL could solve something, but it turned out to just be a new form of re-centralization, unbelievable. --- A single point of failure is renamed as "innovation incentive model", is this how we deceive ourselves in Web3? --- How do we present the Berachain case in slides? It's simply a textbook example of a negative case. --- 87% of the vaults are controlled by one protocol, isn't this a nightmare for investors? --- From $2.19B to $267M, it feels like watching fireworks, the kind that hurts.

View OriginalReply0

0xSherlock

· 2025-12-22 10:56

Berachain is truly a textbook example of a reverse case, wrapped in the name of innovation is a centralized monster...

View OriginalReply0

BtcDailyResearcher

· 2025-12-22 10:52

Ah... Infrared dominates with 87%, isn't this just a centralized version in disguise? A 92% fall really can't hold on anymore, Liquidity proof 🤡 still needs more research. From 2.19B to 267 million, just like that in a month... laughable, is this called innovation? I don't understand this show called Berachain, but I'm deeply shocked.

View OriginalReply0

ForkMonger

· 2025-12-22 10:50

lmao infrared basically became the entire chain... that's not decentralization, that's just a liquidity concentration attack waiting to happen. governance efficiency my ass when one protocol controls 87% of the vault mechanics

Reply0

RugResistant

· 2025-12-22 10:45

analyzed this thoroughly and ngl... infrared basically became the single point of failure berachain was supposed to avoid lmao. 35% of emissions + 87% vault control = textbook centralization exploit waiting to happen. red flags detected everywhere here

Reply0

WhaleWatcher

· 2025-12-22 10:31

This is ridiculous, Infrared has a protocol with 87% vaults, it feels like Berachain originally wanted to innovate but ended up reversing into competition.

View OriginalReply0