History of Loom Network

Tracing the Evolution of LOOM: A Detailed History of Loom Network

Launched in early 2018, Loom Network entered the blockchain space during the height of Ethereum’s scalability debate. Its primary value proposition was Layer-2 sidechain infrastructure tailored for high-performance dApps—mostly game and social media-focused—through its custom-built PlasmaChain. Unlike generalist Ethereum scaling solutions, Loom’s focus was on enterprise-grade throughput rather than interoperability or financial primitives.

Loom’s PlasmaChain was intended to act as a bridge between Ethereum and other major chains, including Bitcoin and Binance Chain. It initially supported Solidity-based smart contracts and relied on Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) consensus. The decision to prioritize DPoS over Ethereum’s proof-of-work (then in use) set Loom apart in terms of block finality and transaction speed, though it sparked centralization concerns among purists. Early validators were mostly internal or partner-controlled nodes, raising flags from the broader crypto community.

Loom gained significant traction during the 2018–2019 period, partnering with notable projects such as Axie Infinity and Neon District. For a brief time, it stood at the intersection of blockchain gaming and enterprise experimentation. However, many of these early dApps eventually abandoned the Loom infrastructure. This migration was due to both Loom’s lack of development transparency and strategic pivots that alienated their developer community.

By mid-2020, a controversial shift took place: the Loom Network team publicly announced a re-orientation toward enterprise blockchain solutions in Southeast Asia, effectively de-prioritizing its original community and developer base. This led to a sharp decline in ecosystem growth and branding coherence. Critics noted eerie parallels to other projects that pivoted away from decentralization, a subject explored in articles like what-happened-to-sean-breezes-crypto-revolution.

The LOOM token itself faced problematic liquidity issues across several exchanges, often due to miscommunications surrounding token swaps and mainnet integrations. While the token remained active on Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain, confusion over staking mechanisms and utility degraded long-term holder confidence. Speculation occasionally emerged in forums regarding the token's real status post-migration, especially after nodes on PlasmaChain were sunset without comprehensive transition plans.

Despite maintaining a presence in the DPoS validator infrastructure model, Loom's governance and roadmapping processes remained opaque. The absence of a transparent DAO or community vote system contrasts with best-in-class examples found in protocols like yearn-finance-decentralized-power-governance-in-yearn-finance

Those seeking exposure to projects with more robust governance and liquidity models may consider platforms with direct centralized exchange (CEX) entry points such as Binance.

How Loom Network Works

How the Loom Network Works: Under the Hood of LOOM's Infrastructure

Loom Network is architected as a Layer-2 scaling solution built atop Ethereum, leveraging Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) to enable high-throughput, low-latency dApps—particularly in gaming and social sectors. Central to its design is a custom blockchain known as PlasmaChain (previously Basechain), aimed at mitigating Ethereum’s scalability bottlenecks by offloading smart contract execution and interactions.

PlasmaChain connects to Ethereum for security and asset transfers, acting as a hub that also interfaces with other major chains like Binance Smart Chain and Tron. This cross-chain compatibility isn't trustless nor permissionless; it requires validators elected through staking of the LOOM token. These validators are responsible for consensus, block production, and network governance. Performance-wise, transactions on PlasmaChain are settled nearly instantaneously with confirmation certainty within seconds, unlike Ethereum’s nagging block finality delays.

Unlike traditional sidechains that rely on fully new consensus layers, Loom’s approach integrates middleware to facilitate interoperability between dApps and multiple blockchains. It provides SDKs designed for developers to spin off application-specific chains (AppChains) with customizable consensus, slashing conditions, and virtual machines. However, developer uptake has historically been underwhelming. Projects have migrated away from Loom in favor of more robust, well-supported Layer-2 solutions such as Optimism and zkSync.

A key criticism of Loom’s mechanism is its validator centralization. While DPoS theoretically allows for decentralization among elected delegates, the network’s small validator set—often under a dozen—introduces collusion risk and systemic fragility. Moreover, the protocol’s zk-like features are minimal; no zero-knowledge proofs or advanced cryptographic primitives are currently employed, reducing its appeal in privacy-conscious applications.

LOOM tokens serve as staking instruments and access keys. Validators require bonded LOOM tokens to participate, while developers use them for deploying dApps or launching AppChains. This dual-purpose use intertwines utility and speculative value, but also exposes users to potential token volatility during peak demand times or governance events.

While the network once positioned itself as a go-to solution for blockchain-based games, newer ecosystems with more advanced tokenomics, such as those covered in a-deepdive-into-akropolis, have since overshadowed Loom's appeal. Additionally, real adoption friction has stemmed from inconsistent documentation and a lack of clear protocol upgrade transparency.

Access to LOOM tokens is possible on several centralized exchanges, including Binance. However, users seeking deep liquidity or on-chain utility should scrutinize token distribution and validator incentives before engagement.

Use Cases

Exploring Loom Network (LOOM) Use Cases in the Evolving Blockchain Stack

Loom Network was originally conceived as a Layer-2 scaling solution for Ethereum, leveraging the Plasma framework to enable high-throughput dApps. Over time, its architecture shifted toward a multichain interoperable platform with support for DPoS (Delegated Proof-of-Stake) consensus. Despite shifts in development focus and implementation strategies over time, LOOM tokens continue to be relevant in specific blockchain use cases, particularly in resource allocation and network-level governance within supported chains.

Game Development and Digital Collectibles

Loom Network gained initial traction by offering dev-friendly SDKs for deploying games and gaming assets on sidechains, offloading transactional complexity from Ethereum. Projects like CryptoZombies were early demonstrations not only of gamification potential but of how LOOM-enabled chains could manage NFT logic without congesting mainnets. While competition in blockchain gaming has intensified — with protocols such as Vulcan Forged and Gala Games refining niche-specific tooling — Loom Network's early use cases highlighted fundamental requirements for game-specific chains: fast finality, high throughput, and support for NFT standards like ERC-721.

Enterprise-Focused Chain Deployment

Loom introduced the concept of “Application-Specific Sidechains” early in the Ethereum scaling conversation. These independent DPoS chains enabled enterprises and developers to deploy Ethereum-compatible dApps with custom parameters for governance, asset models, or compliance needs. The idea of launching fully-isolated chains per application has parallels in modern modular blockchain architectures such as Cosmos Zones or Substrate-based Parachains. However, Loom’s approach faced adoption friction due to limited SDK innovation post-launch and challenges in community-driven infrastructure upkeep.

Interoperability as a Use Case

The introduction of gateways for TRON, Binance Chain, and Bitcoin aimed to allow dApps on Loom sidechains to interact with assets across ecosystems. This cross-chain capability theoretically made Loom Network a precursor to modern interoperability plays. Yet, operational complexity and maintenance overhead of these bridges—with limited reliable audits or adoption—meant that utilization never matched the ambitions. In comparison, projects like QuarkChain and Biconomy have offered higher developer traction in bridging assets or abstracting cross-chain complexity.

Delegated Staking and Governance

LOOM tokens serve a staking function for validator node selection and chain security in supported DPoS environments. Users delegate tokens to validators, influencing consensus while earning staking rewards. However, since multiple Loom SDK-based chains operate independently, there’s no unified network-wide governance, leading to fragmentation in token utility. Compared to projects like StakeWise, which centralize governance and token utility around a unified staking protocol, Loom’s model can be ambiguous for network participants assessing long-term protocol cohesion.

To stake or trade LOOM tokens, users typically interact via centralized platforms like Binance, where liquidity remains concentrated.

Loom Network Tokenomics

Decoding LOOM Tokenomics: Unpacking the Supply and Allocation Strategy

Loom Network’s LOOM token operates on Ethereum as an ERC-20 asset, originally conceived to power DApp interactions across multiple chains. Its tokenomics design reflects the project’s early ambitions to enable scalable smart contracts and seamless interoperability. Key to this utility model was broad exposure across platforms—Ethereum, BNB Chain, and formerly others—with LOOM acting as a unified staking and transaction token.

The total supply is capped at 1 billion LOOM tokens, a non-inflationary ceiling that has not been altered since its inception. However, the real circulating supply is significantly less than the total, due primarily to allocations that remain locked or are held by project-controlled wallets. This discrepancy has raised persistent concerns among market participants about potential “unlock shock,” should the team decide to reintroduce dormant tokens into active use.

From an allocation standpoint, early investors and the team received a significant portion of the LOOM supply. Rough breakdowns indicate that private sale participants and team/advisor wallets collectively held a considerable percentage — with vesting schedules initially in place. However, due to shifting development priorities and team turnover, transparency around these vesting mechanisms and their current status has become fragmented.

One of LOOM's pivotal but lesser-known design features was its staking utility, particularly during the PlasmaChain era. Validators were required to stake LOOM tokens to participate in consensus, aligning incentive mechanisms with network stability. This model aligned with frameworks seen in other incentivized governance structures like those found in Unlocking YFI Your Guide to Yearn Finance, reinforcing the value-circle between token holders and validators. However, as Loom Network pivoted away from PlasmaChain toward a business-centric model, the staking narrative largely diminished—leaving parts of the supply model disengaged from current use cases.

The transition away from staking and network-wide public infrastructure has had implications for LOOM’s demand mechanics. Today, token velocity appears limited, with reduced utility-centric transaction volume. While LOOM exists across multiple chains, its true functional demand has become less defined compared to assets that maintain active utility mechanisms or continuously onboard new integrations, such as those explored in Decoding CANTO Tokenomics for DeFi Success.

Finally, due to its wide ERC-20 presence and centralized reserves, liquidity pools and centralized exchanges continue to enable access. For users exploring such markets, platforms like Binance offer high liquidity pairs, though risks around token unlocks and low utility should be carefully evaluated by participants conducting due diligence.

Loom Network Governance

Loom Network Governance: Navigating Centralization Challenges in Crypto Ecosystems

Loom Network’s governance framework stands in stark contrast to more decentralized models prominent in contemporary Layer-2 and cross-chain ecosystems. Despite marketing itself as a platform for scalable dApps and interoperable smart contracts, Loom's governance lacks fundamental elements that define decentralized protocol stewardship: community voting, robust DAO structures, and token-weighted proposals.

The LOOM token currently plays no legislative role in protocol-level decision-making. Unlike protocols such as Decentralized Governance in Ethereum Classic Explained or Decentralized Governance in SingularityNET Explained, LOOM holders are not meaningfully empowered to influence technical upgrades, roadmap direction, or treasury management. Governance updates come top-down from the core development team, raising concerns about centralization risks and lack of long-term community resilience.

This lack of formalized governance becomes even more problematic given Loom Network's past attempts to pivot between use cases—from gaming to enterprise solutions and DeFi integrations. The absence of public governance channels or transparent accountability processes places the entire protocol trajectory at the discretion of a small internal team, contradicting decentralization principles central to blockchain ideology.

In contrast, platforms like Decentralized Governance The NEXA Revolution demonstrate how DAOs can foster active protocol evolution through community consensus. Loom Network’s silencing of token holders limits the emergence of grassroots development and disincentivizes ecosystem participation beyond speculation.

Token governance isn't just a philosophical battleground—it carries technical implications. Without LOOM’s integration into governance mechanisms, the token faces utility dilution. In the current structure, LOOM is neither a governance token nor a transactional currency at scale, leading to ambiguity about its core function.

For developers building on Loom or considering interoperability bridges, the opaque governance undermines assurances around protocol longevity and upgrade coordination. Especially when considering deploying assets or data layers into Layer-2 chains, governance trust is foundational.

In light of these gaps, the platform’s direction could benefit from implementing a delegate-based system or minimal viable DAO, similar to models discussed in Empowering Communities GHST Aavegotchi Governance Explained. Until then, developers and token holders should proceed with caution and recognize LOOM’s governance as functionally centralized.

For those still exploring Layer-2 alternatives or interested in platforms with more cohesive governance mechanisms, registering through Binance provides access to Loom and a broad asset universe supporting tokens with verifiable DAO models.

Technical future of Loom Network

Loom Network Roadmap: Key Technical Developments and Future Upgrades

Loom Network has undergone several architectural shifts since its inception as a Layer-2 scaling solution for Ethereum, transitioning toward a more application-specific blockchain that prioritizes gaming and social apps through its DPoS-based chain with EVM compatibility. Its technical roadmap ahead reflects an ambition to further disentangle from Ethereum dependency while strengthening ecosystem modularity and chain sovereignty.

zkEVM Integration and Cross-Chain Interoperability

One major development planned is the incorporation of zkEVM-based scaling solutions into the Loom ecosystem. This is a strategic pivot designed to position Loom Network for a post-rollup world where zero-knowledge proofs dominate the scalability narrative. By embracing native zkEVM implementation, Loom can execute trustless contract migrations and verifications across chains without sacrificing EVM compatibility or security guarantees. The challenge here lies in Loom’s ability to cope with the latency inherent in zk proof generation, especially in gaming environments favoring fast state transitions.

Modular Blockchain Interfacing

Loom is also repositioning its chain through a modular approach—allowing individual dApps to spin their own customizable sidechains while still inheriting shared security from the Loom Base Layer. This mirrors broader trends seen in platforms like Cosmos and Polkadot but without native support for interchain messaging standards like IBC. Developers will need to navigate custom APIs or third-party bridges for interoperability. Compared with projects such as QuarkChain’s sharded scaling model, Loom’s lack of standardized cross-chain messaging frameworks may hinder broader adoption.

Validator Economics and Governance Reforms

Current validator participation remains limited due to outdated economic incentives and low staking yields. A redesigned validator reward schema is under consideration, potentially incorporating quadratic staking curves or vault-integrated income streams for dApps. This would more closely align with models seen in Yearn Finance’s DAO-centric revenue mechanisms. However, no formal governance proposal system currently exists on-chain, raising concerns about centralization in protocol evolution.

SDK Enhancements and GameFi Tooling

The Loom SDK is set to receive critical updates focused on developer onboarding, GameFi mechanics, and EVM tooling. These include pre-built modules for asset minting, NFT staking, and Layer-2 to Layer-1 asset bridging. Yet, there is a lack of transparency in SDK version control and documentation access, which may deter enterprise developers used to streamlined CI/CD pipelines in more established frameworks.

For developers exploring a diversified blockchain ecosystem, Loom’s evolution remains technically compelling. However, until interoperability and on-chain governance mechanisms are better defined, more mature networks may offer clearer pathways toward decentralized composability. To explore alternatives optimizing cross-chain DeFi infrastructures, see this comparison with Biconomy’s approach to blockchain transactions.

Access Loom token trading with a trusted exchange here.

Comparing Loom Network to it’s rivals

Loom Network vs. MATIC: A Technical Face-Off in Layer-2 Ecosystems

Loom Network and MATIC (Polygon) both offer Ethereum-compatible scaling solutions, but their architectural focuses and developer adoption diverge significantly. While Loom Network initially targeted dApp scalability through a Plasma-based sidechain architecture, it has pivoted toward enterprise solutions, limiting its presence in the public Layer-2 conversation. In contrast, MATIC consistently scaled its ecosystem by aligning tightly with Ethereum Layer-2 standards, evolving toward full-fledged zkEVM rollups.

A fundamental architectural distinction exists in consensus mechanisms. Loom relies on Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) tailored for throughput over decentralization. It trades validator diversity for consistent performance — effective for enterprise use cases, but a point of critique for public decentralization advocates. On the other hand, MATIC leverages a hybrid PoS/Plasma model, and more recently zk-rollups, balancing scalability with Ethereum-style decentralization and broader network effects.

Interoperability and tooling offer another point of contrast. Loom's SDK enables developers to deploy dApps with chain-specific customization but lacks in EVM-specific integration. MATIC, conversely, offers nearly seamless EVM compatibility—complete with Metamask, Remix, Truffle, and on-chain oracles. This has led to significantly higher developer activity and DeFi composability in the MATIC ecosystem.

Token utility differences also sharpen the divide. LOOM’s role has become more ambiguous with time. Originally envisioned for staking and dApp interaction, its function diminished as Loom shifted from open-network goals. MATIC’s token is central to network security, transaction fees, and governance. Its integral use across scaling models keeps network participants engaged and the tokenomics coherent.

Enterprise adoption shows a unique angle. Loom has pursued B2B applications, including healthcare and compliance-related platforms, where custom sidechains and privacy layers are favorable. However, these deployments are often private and lack community visibility. MATIC’s integrations with major dApps, DeFi protocols like Aave and Sushi, and NFT marketplaces reflect a broader, community-backed ecosystem.

Security overhead and upgrade path are critical considerations. MATIC’s active development on zkEVM suggests long-term commitment to Ethereum-aligned L2s. Loom’s sidechains, in contrast, lack inherited Ethereum security and require bespoke validator setups per chain, raising questions around security guarantees.

While both play in the Layer-2 space, Loom’s trajectory aligns more with enterprise sovereignty rather than public DeFi or gaming spaces, where MATIC is dominant. For insight into similar approaches to decentralized infrastructure targeting varied blockchain sectors, dive into a-deepdive-into-biconomy which explores API-layer interoperability in depth.

To explore LOOM or MATIC directly via a centralized exchange, consider registering on Binance.

Loom Network vs Fantom (FTM): A Closer Look at Technical Architecture and Ecosystem Design

When comparing Loom Network and Fantom (FTM), the divergence in technical architecture becomes immediately apparent. Loom Network was initially designed as a Layer 2 scaling solution for Ethereum, tailored for dApps and games. Its architecture is built around the concept of DPoS (Delegated Proof of Stake) sidechains, optimized for fast, user-friendly dApp interactions. In contrast, Fantom operates as a standalone Layer 1 platform, leveraging a DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph)-based consensus mechanism, Lachesis, to offer asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerance and near-instant finality.

The DAG architecture positions FTM as highly performant, with block confirmation times under a second and throughput in the thousands of transactions per second (TPS). Loom’s PlasmaChain, at its peak, offered robust deliverables for throughput but lacked native composability. Its reliance on Ethereum’s mainnet also created bottlenecks for interoperability that Fantom doesn’t face, thanks to its EVM-compatibility and independent consensus layer.

Ecosystem development also diverges significantly. Fantom has evolved into a DeFi-centric powerhouse, fostering native protocols and cross-chain integrations, particularly in liquidity and lending markets. Loom, in contrast, was more application-specific, originally designed with an emphasis on game developers needing scalability and low-latency interactions. While this focused approach built early momentum, it constrained broader DeFi integrations, which are now central to ecosystem viability.

One of Loom’s trade-offs was in validator decentralization. Its validator set remains highly centralized compared to FTM’s more expansive, permissionless validator structure. This distinction is critical in a security and governance context. While both use PoS variants, the decentralization narrative tilts strongly in favor of FTM.

On the developer support side, Fantom benefits from a deeply ingrained toolset mirroring Ethereum's, alongside robust developer grants and integrations with prominent Web3 frameworks. Loom, post-restructuring phases, saw developer attrition and fragmented standards across its sidechains, complicating dev onboarding.

That said, Fantom’s complexity introduces its own risks—improperly designed smart contracts running on its isolated state machines can produce inconsistent UX across chains that appear interoperable.

Neither chain is immune to critiques. Fantom has faced questions about Layer 1 sustainability and real adoption beyond incentivized DeFi. For Loom, it’s the relevance of its architecture in a multi-chain world that's under scrutiny, especially after being eclipsed by more modular, interoperable networks like Cosmos or Polkadot.

To explore how tokenomics shape sustainable DeFi ecosystems like FTM’s, refer to our article on Decoding AKRO The Future of DeFi Tokenomics.

Loom vs Harmony (ONE): A Deep Dive Into Layer-2 vs Sharded Layer-1 Architecture

When comparing Loom Network to Harmony (ONE), the discussion gravitates toward the philosophical and architectural divergence between Layer-2 sidechains and sharded Layer-1 networks. While both aim to scale blockchain usability, their means—and compromises—are starkly different.

Loom Network was designed as a Layer-2 platform specializing in scalable dApps, with early positioning linked primarily to Ethereum. Using delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS), Loom prioritized fast finality for GameFi and social applications but made strategic trade-offs around decentralization and interoperability. Initially Ethereum-focused, Loom now lives largely as a chain with lower-profile integrations, creating friction for developers who seek consistent tooling across ecosystems.

In contrast, Harmony takes a base-layer approach with its sharded Layer-1 architecture. Utilizing Effective Proof-of-Stake (ePoS), it achieves parallel transaction processing across shards, offering high throughput natively at Layer-1. While this gives Harmony an advantage in avoiding Layer-2 bridge complexity, the ecosystem remains susceptible to issues around validator centralization. One of Harmony’s primary criticisms involves a large proportion of stake being controlled by a small validator set, exposing attack vectors that undermine security assurances.

Developer tooling also reveals deep contrasts. Harmony offers native SDKs and a Web3-compatible environment aimed to be Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)-friendly, whereas Loom’s infrastructure depends heavily on Cosmos-SDK and Tendermint. This divergence can result in mismatch between developer expectations and actual workflows—especially for those coming from the Ethereum ecosystem. Furthermore, while Harmony maintains compatibility with MetaMask and other standard Ethereum tools, Loom requires custom integrations, raising the barrier for quicker onboarding.

Another sticking point lies in ecosystem traction. Harmony’s DeFi activity, while not rivaling Tier-1 ecosystems like Ethereum or BSC, shows a more visible set of live protocols and TVL across bridges. Conversely, Loom experiences reduced usage with fewer flagship projects actively maintained or promoted. Many early projects have since migrated or discontinued. This contrast becomes more pronounced when examining developer migration patterns and user adoption trends—an area where Harmony has historically leaned into incentivization strategies to a stronger degree.

In privacy-focused wallets and bridge infrastructure, neither Loom nor ONE matches the advancements of competitors like Secret Network or Akash. However, for those interested in privacy layers, this deepdive into Secret Network may provide relevant insight into how emerging networks are approaching user safety and selective data disclosure.

Ultimately, dissecting Loom and Harmony highlights not just a technology comparison, but differing community dynamics, governance constraints, and developer ergonomics—all critical to scaling sustainable blockchain infrastructure.

Primary criticisms of Loom Network

Unpacking the Primary Criticisms of LOOM Network: Centralization, Abandonment, and Governance Failures

Despite its initial promise as a Layer-2 platform focused on gaming and social dApps, Loom Network (LOOM) has been subject to substantial criticism from the crypto community, centered around its governance model, developer commitment, and overall community engagement. These criticisms have consistently raised concerns about the network’s sustainability and legitimacy as a decentralized project.

One of the most persistent critiques revolves around centralization. While marketed as a decentralized sidechain infrastructure for Ethereum, LOOM has been dominated by decisions from its core team, often without transparent input from the token holders or validators. The absence of a robust, on-chain governance mechanism has led to sporadic updates and roadmap changes, prompting comparisons to projects like Celo-under-fire-key-criticisms-explained, where similar trust issues have hindered adoption.

Another serious point of contention has been the apparent neglect by the core development team. After a significant pivot away from gaming and dApps toward enterprise-focused blockchain solutions, the community was left in the dark. The abrupt rebranding and focus shift effectively marginalized original supporters and partners. This scenario mirrors patterns examined in unpacking-nimiq-key-criticisms, where inconsistencies in vision led to diminished community confidence and ongoing uncertainty.

Compounding the issue is a history of poor communication. Core announcements about token swaps, changes in validator rewards, or protocol alterations have often lacked transparency or robust documentation. Several stakeholders saw this as a breach of the social contract typical in decentralized ecosystems. Participants who staked LOOM or contributed infrastructure were left scrambling due to unclear transitions—a contrast to the best practices outlined in projects like covalent-cqt-addressing-major-critiques-and-challenges that emphasize community-centric protocol evolution.

Additionally, there are concerns regarding tokenomics drift. Critics point to misalignments between token utility and protocol growth. As high inflation without corresponding utility dilutes holder value, LOOM’s distribution mechanisms have been compared unfavorably to DeFi tokens with sustainable, DAO-directed allocations. Those looking to trade or stake LOOM should consider platforms with proven transparency in market mechanics. For on-chain trading or liquidity provision, platforms like Binance still support LOOM, although long-term confidence remains an open question.

Critically, many seasoned crypto users interpret LOOM's trajectory as a cautionary tale about how centralization, misaligned incentives, and fragmented communication can critically erode a project’s standing, even if its underlying tech stack offers theoretical value.

Founders

Meet the Founding Team Behind Loom Network: Key Individuals, Vision, and Controversies

Loom Network’s founding team is led by a group of developers and technologists who emerged from the Ethereum ecosystem in the mid-2010s. The most prominent figure associated with the project is Matthew Campbell, who previously worked as an engineer at DigitalOcean and later became a pivotal voice advocating Ethereum scalability via sidechains. Campbell, alongside co-founders James Duffy and Luke Zhang, launched Loom with a mission to enable scalable, user-facing dApps—initially targeting the gaming and social applications sectors.

The trio brought complementary skills to the table: Campbell was the protocol architect and spokesperson, Duffy contributed in marketing and community building, while Zhang handled system architecture and core blockchain development. Their combined experience shaped Loom’s PlasmaChain, one of the earliest implementations of a Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) based layer-2 solution intended to alleviate Ethereum congestion issues.

However, the founding team’s reputation has not gone without scrutiny. Around 2020, Loom Network underwent a drastic internal shift. Campbell and the original contributors stepped away from the project—with little direct communication to the community. This sudden exit raised trust concerns. Many token holders and developers viewed this move as an abandonment, which significantly damaged Loom’s brand among builders in the Ethereum and broader blockchain ecosystem.

Post-departure, the project was handed over to a new, pseudonymous team, the identities of which remain undisclosed. This opacity has added to community skepticism, especially in a decentralized environment where transparency is a core principle. Critics argue that the transition process lacked the governance frameworks seen in more community-led projects such as Decentralized Governance in Yearn Finance or Governance Unlocked The Power of BLD in Agoric.

Despite Loom being listed on major crypto exchanges—with new teams continuing development—the legitimacy of its long-term technical vision without its original architects remains a point of debate. Trust in a crypto project often rests as much on codebase quality as it does on leadership continuity, and Loom Network provides a cautionary tale in that regard.

For those exploring Loom on secondary markets, ensure due diligence—platforms like Binance offer liquidity, but governance participation and community engagement are minimal by contemporary standards.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

• https://loomx.io
• https://loomx.io/developers
• https://loomx.io/about
• https://medium.com/loom-network
• https://github.com/loomnetwork
• https://github.com/loomnetwork/loomchain
• https://loomx.io/files/loom-network-whitepaper.pdf
• https://etherscan.io/token/0x42476f744292107e34519f9c357927074ea3f75d
• https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/loom-network/
• https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/loom-network-new
• https://twitter.com/loomnetwork
• https://www.reddit.com/r/loomnetwork/
• https://docs.looomx.io
• https://forum.loomx.io
• https://defillama.com/protocol/loom-network
• https://dappradar.com/binance-smart-chain/games/loom-network
• https://www.binance.com/en/trade/LOOM_USDT
• https://nomics.com/assets/loom2-loom-network
• https://cryptorank.io/price/loom-network
• https://messari.io/asset/loom-network