Monero's 51% Takeover: 3 Hard Truths No One Wants to Admit

Qubic’s claim to 51% control of Monero’s hashrate isn’t simply a technical misunderstanding. In doing so, it illuminates some of the most egregious and obvious shortcomings in the crypto world that we as a crypto community are utterly unable to recognize. Our industry gives itself lots of credit for being decentralized, but how secure are we really when it comes to our thinking? So let’s pull these ugly truths out into the daylight.

RandomX Is Not A Silver Bullet

Monero introduced RandomX in an effort to fight ASIC mining, hoping to create a more egalitarian distribution of mining power. Sounds great in theory, but the supposed success of Qubic demonstrates that the truth is much more complicated. Did RandomX fail completely? No. Did it prevent centralization? Apparently not. At that time, we thought ASICs were the primary threat. Yet, perhaps more than user ICO mining, coordinated CPU mining, motivated by economic incentives, could be the even sneakier foe.

Think of it like this: we built a fortress to keep out tanks, but forgot about the tunnels underneath. RandomX raised the barrier for dedicated mining hardware, but it didn't address the human element: the allure of profit and the potential for a coordinated effort to amass resources. It's like believing a fancy lock will stop a determined burglar; it might deter some, but a professional will find a way. We have to consider one important question—Did RandomX actually fix the issue? Or was it really just a costly band-aid that simply bought us some additional time?

The truth is, all algorithms can be gamed. Any system can be exploited. Let’s stop treating RandomX like a black box defense. Rather, we need to be realistic and talk about layers of defense that involve economic disincentives, social consensus, and strong monitoring.

Economic Incentives Corrupt Everything

Qubic’s so-called “experiment” isn’t an altruistic effort to make Monero great again. It’s a cold, hard, calculated application of game theory, illustrating yet again that economic incentives will always win out over decentralization and privacy ideals. They recognized an opportunity to make money and took it.

Here's the kicker: they were upfront about it. They didn’t hide their intentions. They advertised their strategy! This should be a wake-up call. While the crypto world is undeniably steeped in utopian visions, it plays in the capitalist economy. And in capitalism, money talks. Loudly.

Let's be brutally honest: many miners aren't ideologically committed to Monero. They're in it for the ROI. With payouts like these, Qubic was a magnet for miners, attracting them in droves. It's like offering a starving man a steak. He's not going to ask about the ethical sourcing, he's going to eat.

This isn't just a Monero problem. It’s a basic flaw with all proof-of-work systems. As long as you create a financial incentive, you create an incentive to cheat, to exploit, to centralize. We first have to recognize this inherent tension — heavily influenced by lobbying — and create systems that are more resilient to economic manipulation. Think of it like this: we need to build a financial immune system, capable of fighting off these kinds of attacks.

Mid-Tier Coins Are Inherently Vulnerable

Monero, despite its popularity, isn't Bitcoin. It doesn’t have all of the same hashrate, all of the same network effect, all of the same level of scrutiny. This fact alone makes it a lot more susceptible to a 51% attack. To be frank, so are most other coins.

We enjoy deluding ourselves into thinking that every cryptocurrency is its own, impregnable, sovereign nation that can defend against complex, manifold threats. The truth is, most of them are more like an atoll, an easy target to defeat with a much larger army.

Even a relatively small player like Qubic could theoretically acquire enough of Monero’s hashrate. This prospect should send shockwaves through anyone who cares about smaller or mid-cap crypto projects. It highlights a systemic risk: the lack of security for coins that haven't achieved critical mass.

This isn't about FUD. It's about realism. Let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that all coins are just as secure. Now, we need to start admitting that smaller networks are inherently more vulnerable. What it takes This starts with demanding more robust security audits. We should embrace different consensus mechanisms and have a healthier skepticism for the investment case made for these assets. So we need to stop pretending we are ostriches with our heads buried in the sand. Now is the time to address the security concerns that loom over the vast majority of cryptocurrencies.

This isn't about FUD. It's about realism. We need to stop pretending that every coin is equally secure and start acknowledging the inherent vulnerabilities of smaller networks. This means demanding better security audits, exploring alternative consensus mechanisms, and being more realistic about the risks involved in investing in these assets. We need to stop acting like ostriches burying our heads in the sand and actually address the security realities facing the vast majority of cryptocurrencies.