The user keeps the money, the data and the final say through DeFi. It moves financial control to the individual and marks a clear change in how custody plus asset exchange work. The debate counts because it touches every user, every liquidity provider and every platform that issues a vote bearing token, and the 2016 DAO hack shows that opportunity and risk sit side by side when code guards the vault.
With DeFi power travels from institutions to people through self custody, peer-to-peer trades and on-chain votes. This shift reframes who controls assets, how markets match orders, and how decisions are made across protocols.
Self-custody lets a person hold private keys inside Metamask, Ledger or a similar tool, and that banks or governments then lose the ability to freeze the account. This relocation of control increases autonomy while raising the operational burden on users.
DEXs such as Uniswap and SushiSwap match buyers and sellers with smart contracts—no broker stands between them, a design that should lower cost as well as shorten settlement time. By automating market functions on-chain, these venues expand access while preserving counterparty minimization.
Token governance, seen on MakerDAO or Compound, lets the community vote on fees, collateral lists and upgrades. Open ballots replace back room deals, and treasuries face new coordination problems and political-economic risk as token holders navigate proposals and turnout.
She lists the concrete dangers: bugs in smart contracts, impermanent loss for liquidity providers and an unclear regulatory map. The reporter returns to the 2016 DAO hack to underscore that “code is law, but flawed code is chaos.” Technical definition: impermanent loss is the temporary drop in value that a liquidity provider records when the prices of the deposited tokens shift away from their starting ratio.
DeFi grants borderless access to finance, giving people who live under capital controls an entry point that bypasses traditional gatekeepers.
Why does DeFi empower every individual?
DEXs cut costs and widen the set of tradable pairs, yet depth depends on providers who must accept impermanent loss risk whenever price ratios move. A contract flaw can drain funds, and audits or code review before any deposit to reduce exposure to latent vulnerabilities.
Token voting invites participation, but large holders can steer outcomes while small holders struggle to coordinate, creating new political-economy dynamics.
DeFi will advance only if contract auditing, risk management and regulatory clarity improve, arguing that autonomy must coexist with safeguards that limit technical and governance failure. The conversation around security and regulation will keep steering the pace of adoption.
