The Entire Crypto Community Is Reeling from Crypto.com's Controversial Decision to Re-mint 70 Billion CRO

That action, which is essentially an undoing of a token burn that was executed in 2021 with the goal of creating a permanent impact on the token's supply

The entire crypto community is currently discussing the controversial decision by Crypto.com to re-mint 70 billion CRO. This action, which is essentially an undoing of a token burn that was executed in 2021 with the goal of creating a permanent impact on the token’s supply, has drawn significant criticism and claims of trust being broken, and fueled the ongoing conversation about centralization vs decentralization in the crypto space.

At the heart of the controversy is Crypto.com’s plan to reverse a major token burn that took place in 2021. Initially, this burn effectively took 70 billion CRO out of circulation and was seen as a step in a good direction, as it should help stabilize the value of the token and reward long-hold types.

According to the justification for their re-minting, the new tokens will be utilized as a strategic reserve for the Cronos blockchain and allocated for investments in Cronos projects — and even potentially a CRO-backed Exchange Traded Fund (ETF). However, the methods to realize these goals have caused considerable division in the community. Many in the community argue that token burns are meant to be irreversible and serve as a fundamental mechanism to reduce inflation and increase scarcity. Reversing such a decision, they claim, undermines investor confidence and raises concerns about Crypto.com’s long-term commitment to its tokenomics strategy.

The voting process itself has come under scrutiny. Enactment of the proposal, which ranged from March 2nd to March 16th, struggled to gain traction for a large part of its time period. Support dipped precariously above opposition, but the critical quorum of 33.4% required for the proposal to pass remained just out of reach.

Then, in the final hours, everything changed. An unprecedented volume of 3.35 billion CRO tokens rushing into the “yes” pool caused the proposal to cross the line and was followed by a tidal wave of anger and disbelief among the community. A total of 61.18% voted for, 17.61% voted against, 20.11% abstained, and 0.11% vetoed. The turnout for the vote is 70.18%, far beyond the required minimum.

The late flood of votes has been largely blamed on validators owned by Crypto.com. These validators, including Starship, Falcon Heavy, Electron, Antares, and Minotaur IV, collectively control a large majority (70-80%) of the total voting power within the Cronos network. This power center enabled Crypto.com to qualify as a validator in order to bypass smaller validators’ baskets with respect to token holders.

Critics argue that the sudden influx of votes from Crypto.com-controlled validators not only skewed the outcome but also set a dangerous precedent for future governance decisions. Some community members described the move as “governance theater,” arguing that decentralization exists in name only. If a single entity can single-handedly tip the balance in its favor, many fear that decentralized decision-making could become an illusion rather than a reality.

Final voting tally. Source: Mintscan

The incident, however, goes deeper than just its immediate financial consequences, as it leaves behind questions regarding the long-term sustainability of governance models in blockchain-based projects. Such overwhelming control by a single entity over the voting process undermines decentralization and allows the wealthiest groups to dictate the network’s future development.

More News: Crypto.com Sets Ambitious Course: Cronos ETF and Stablecoin Launch in 2025