No project should hang on one login

On 12 October 2026 our X account was suspended. Our appeal was rejected the same day.

This post is not about that decision. Every platform sets its own rules. That is its right.

It is about a simpler question the suspension put in front of us. What is a project when one login goes away?

A login is a lease

An account on a platform is not property. It is permission. Someone else holds the switch, and the terms say so.

That is true for more than social media. A domain is rented from a registrar. A server is rented from a host. Code lives on someone's platform. A key sits in one wallet.

Each of these is fine as a tool. Each becomes a problem the moment it is the only place something exists, or the only way in.

Three times one point of control was enough

A domain. In 2022 the registrar declared eth.link expired. The address made .eth names reachable in ordinary browsers. According to reporting by Forkast, the only person with the authority to renew it was in prison. The address was sold at auction on 3 September 2022. The project behind it went to court, disputed the expiry, and got the domain back.

A registrar. On 12 May 2025 attackers changed the DNS settings of curve.fi at the registrar. Curve's own report is clear: no contract and no internal system was touched. Visitors still landed on a copy of the site that asked their wallets for signatures. The security firm Hypernative put the losses at $3.5 million; Curve's report names no figure.

A social account. On 9 September 2023 the X account of Vitalik Buterin was taken over and used to post a fake NFT link. The on-chain investigator ZachXBT counted $691,000 in losses. Buterin later said it was a SIM swap: someone talked his phone carrier into handing over his number.

Three layers, one pattern. No contract was broken. Each time, one point of control in front of the contracts was enough.

Five questions for any project

So the test is not "do you use centralised services?" Everyone does. The test is what happens when one of them says no. These five questions work for any project. We ask them of ourselves too, and the rest of this post is our answer so far.

1. Who owns the domain, and who can renew it if that person is not there?
2. If a platform locks an account tomorrow, what is lost? Only reach, or the only copy of what was said?
3. Who holds the keys that can move funds or change settings? One person, or several who must agree?
4. If one person is unavailable, who else can get in?
5. Where is all of this written down, so that you can check it instead of believing it?

A project does not need perfect answers. It needs answers, and a direction.

Who this project is for

Shiba Classic rests on its community. The maintainer, the developer who drives it forward, is a community member like everyone else. He bought his tokens on the open market and got no allocation. The project does not belong to him. He is building it up so that it will meet what a DAO demands, and meet it fully.

The aim is easy to say. Nobody inside the project should be able to turn it to their own advantage. Everything in the project should belong to the community and work for the community.

Why does he do it? Partly because he enjoys it. Partly because of the state so many DAOs, and so much of crypto, are in.

How we handle social channels follows from that. We build them on the community that supports the project, the same way the maintainer builds the project itself. No single account should be its voice.

What cannot be switched off

Some parts of Shiba Classic pass the test already. They need no login at all.

The token has no owner. Ownership of the contract was renounced on 13 November 2024. Nobody can raise fees, stop trading or mint.

The liquidity has no key. The pool's LP tokens sit at the burn address.

Votes are counted on-chain. The DAO runs on Aragon, and the maintainer holds no admin key over it.

None of that noticed the suspension. No holder lost anything. No rule changed. That is what "nobody owns it" looks like on an ordinary Monday.

What already works that way

Communication should work like the token: no single switch. Two parts of that are in place today.

1. Anyone can subscribe without an account. The blog has a feed in every language. A feed reader needs no login and no algorithm.
2. The record is kept elsewhere too. Each week, pages of the site are sent to the Internet Archive again, the ones with the oldest copy first. What we said, and when, does not depend on our own server alone.

What we are taking on next

From now on the website is the source. An update stands there first, under its own address, and channels link to it. If a channel goes away, nothing is missing.

We want the next channels to belong to keys, not to people. On open networks an account can be owned by a wallet, and a handle can be our own domain. We have not opened those accounts yet.

We tested the model first. In a simulation on a copy of the live contracts of an open social protocol, we handed an account to a multisig where two of three signers must agree. Afterwards the multisig owned the account and its recovery. It could grant a posting key and take it away again. The person who had created the account could no longer move it or take it back.

One detail from that test is worth passing on. A plain transfer was not enough. The recovery right stayed with the creator, and with it he could move the account wherever he liked. Ownership and recovery have to change hands together, or the multisig is decoration.

That is the model we are building towards. The group owns. A person works with a permission that can be withdrawn.

The same rule for every key

Channels are the visible part. The same rule will apply to domains, servers and operational keys, wherever the system allows it. The order is set: emergency access first, then a second key holder, then a multisig as custodian, then a team from the community. None of that happens overnight. The steps are set out in our whitepaper.

And the website?

It is a single point too. A domain, a registrar, a server. We cannot remove that, and neither can anyone else. What a project can do is make sure no single point is without a fallback.

For the website, some fallbacks exist today. Copies of its pages sit in the Internet Archive. The feed leaves every post in the reader of whoever subscribed. The token, the pool and the DAO do not need the website at all; their addresses are on the chain.

Others are next: a second person with access to the domain, and a copy of the site that needs neither our server nor our registrar.

That is the rule we take from this week. Not "no central services". No single point without a second way.

A project that depends on one login belongs to whoever holds that login. We do not want to be that holder, and we do not want anyone else to be.

Stumbling blocks like this one only make us tougher. Better to fall on our face now than later, when more depends on it.

Sources for the three cases: Forkast and The Block on eth.link; Curve's own incident report and Hypernative on curve.fi; Decrypt and The Block on the X account.