ChangeNOW.io is a crypto management platform that empowers newcomers, professionals and businesses to handle their Web3 finances in a simple and secure way. Since 2017, ChangeNOW has evolved from a fast, secure and limitless instant crypto exchange to a platform where millions of users worldwide safely store, exchange, trade and stake their crypto assets.
Interview with Pauline Shangett, Chief Strategy Officer at ChangeNOW
We sat down with Pauline Shangett from ChangeNOW to talk about how crypto has changed, the real challenges of decentralization, and how her team keeps growth and transparency in check. We also asked her about the mix of centralization and decentralization in DeFi, and how ChangeNOW deals with the fact that, even though the industry promises freedom, a lot of systems still need some centralized control.
Huge thanks to Pauline for sharing her thoughts on why a hybrid approach to decentralization matters for DeFi. Okay, let’s jump in!
Could you start by introducing yourself and how your experience ties into the topic we’re discussing today?
Sure! I’m Pauline Shangett, currently serving as Chief Strategy Officer at ChangeNOW, where we manage over a billion dollars in monthly trading volume. And over the years, I’ve learned a lot about the tricky balance between decentralization and the central forces that still run the show in this space. DeFi promises all this autonomy, but a lot of it still depends on centralized systems. That tension is exactly what I’m focused on now.
At Coinfest 2025, you spoke about centralization in a space that’s supposed to be decentralized. Why did you choose this topic?
In decentralized finance, there’s a lot of talk about freedom and autonomy, but in practice things look very different. DeFi promised us no banks, no intermediaries, and no KYC. Just code, protocols, and self-custody. On paper, it’s financial freedom by design. But in reality, what users expect and what they get are two very different things. We still see admin keys, governance captured by whales, and pause buttons that can shut everything down. That’s why I think we need to have an honest conversation about how much decentralization really exists.
You’ve called this the “illusion of decentralization.” What do you mean by that?
There are three recurring cracks in that illusion.
First, admin keys. Many projects claim to be decentralized, but the founding teams still hold the keys that can flip the switch. Multisigs sound safer until you realize all the signers are in the same Telegram group.
Second, governance theater. Token voting looks noble, but when large holders weigh in, the outcome is already decided before smaller voices even read the proposal.
Third, pause buttons. Solana, for example, has halted its network several times. These “emergency switches” are marketed as user protection, but they show exactly who’s really in control. And users only notice it when something breaks.
All of this creates the impression of unstoppable code, but in truth, there are always people pulling the strings.
So you believe centralization in DeFi is inevitable?
Yes, and more than that, sometimes it’s necessary. It may sound paradoxical, but centralized control can actually be vital for DeFi’s stability. It’s not the enemy of decentralization; it’s a safeguard that makes the system more resilient, especially when things go wrong.
Take the Binance Smart Chain hack. Over $100 million was stolen. Binance froze funds, coordinated validators, blocked addresses and it worked. For users, that was a good thing. Without that centralized response, the losses would’ve been catastrophic.
Or look at Sui’s $52 million refund after a liquidity pool exploit. Users got their money back because people with keys stepped in. On-chain code didn’t save them—centralized intervention did.
But doesn’t that contradict the very idea of DeFi?
It does, but I see it as an unavoidable reality. The real question is: do we want a fully permissionless, trustless system, or do we want an emergency exit when something goes wrong? Centralized powers give us the ability to make quick decisions and recover user funds in critical moments.
What kind of balance do you think DeFi should aim for?
I call it “progressive decentralization” or hybrid governance. It’s not about removing all centralization; it’s about being transparent about where it exists and who holds the levers.
Is that the approach you take at ChangeNOW?
Exactly. At ChangeNOW, we embrace that balance. We focus on being transparent about power structures, especially in crises.
We deal with DeFi’s mess every day: fraud, exploits, frozen funds, bugs in half-finished protocols. We show users where the levers are and who’s pulling them.
For example, after the AlexLab hack, we worked with the community to freeze stolen funds and track down the attackers. When Loopscale lost $5.8 million, we quickly blocked suspicious wallet addresses to limit the damage. These weren’t “heroic moments.” This is what real DeFi support looks like. Behind every so-called “unstoppable” protocol, there’s always someone cleaning up the mess.
So in your view, DeFi will never become a perfect system?
I don’t think perfection is realistic, and that’s okay. DeFi doesn’t have to be a utopia. It just needs to be transparent, resilient, and user-first. The future isn’t about being flawless, it’s about being practical and honest about where power lies and how it’s used.
Source:: The Centralization Paradox: Pauline Shangett on Why DeFi's “Pure Autonomy” Is an Illusion