The IOTA Foundation has a serious credibility problem. After years of development, shifting strategies, and promises of real-world adoption, the community deserves more than another roadmap and another explanation of why success is still around the corner. The question is no longer whether IOTA has interesting technology. It is whether the people responsible for the project can turn that technology into a successful ecosystem.
For years, supporters have watched IOTA evolve from its original Tangle vision to Coordicide, IOTA 2.0, Shimmer, and eventually the Rebased architecture. Each transition had its own technical justification, but the bigger question remains: what has all this development delivered for the average IOTA holder? At what point does the Foundation accept that technical progress alone is not enough?
Too Many Changes, Not Enough Accountability
Consider Shimmer. It was introduced as a staging network where new features could be tested and developed before reaching IOTA. It had its own token, ecosystem, and community. Yet the existence of Shimmer also added another layer of complexity to an ecosystem that was already struggling to translate its technological ambitions into widespread adoption. What lasting, measurable benefits did this additional network deliver, and how openly has the Foundation evaluated its overall contribution?
Then came the Rebased proposal, which represented a significant change in IOTA’s technical direction. The Foundation argued that the new architecture would bring programmability and help IOTA compete for applications. But major changes like this deserve serious scrutiny. What happened to previous priorities? What were the costs of changing direction? And what concrete evidence demonstrates that the latest approach will deliver what earlier strategies struggled to achieve?
Related: The IOTA Comeback Nobody Is Talking About
Changing direction is not automatically a failure. Refusing to change when something is not working can be even worse. But repeatedly changing direction without a clear public accounting of results makes it difficult for the community to distinguish strategic evolution from a cycle of restarting expectations.
The Foundation needs to publish an honest assessment of what worked, what failed, and what it learned. The community should not have to piece together the project’s strategic history from old announcements, forum discussions, and abandoned expectations.
Is It Time for Dominik Schiener to Step Aside?
Dominik Schiener has been one of the central figures in IOTA’s leadership and strategic direction. After years of development and multiple strategic changes, it is reasonable to question whether the existing leadership structure is delivering the results the project needs.
This is not about blaming one person for market conditions. No foundation can control cryptocurrency prices. The issue is accountability for strategic execution, ecosystem development, and the ability to build confidence in the project’s future.
If the same leadership continues to oversee major strategic shifts, the community deserves to know what has changed internally to prevent previous problems from recurring. Where is the independent scrutiny? How are strategic decisions evaluated? Who holds leadership accountable when major objectives are delayed, changed, or abandoned?
Perhaps Schiener can lead IOTA through its next phase. But that should not be assumed simply because he has been there from the beginning. Leadership experience matters, but so does the willingness to challenge established thinking and bring in people with different ideas.
The Foundation should seriously consider leadership renewal, stronger independent oversight, and greater community participation in strategic decisions. A change in leadership would not guarantee success, but neither should the current structure be treated as untouchable.
Partnerships Are Not the Same as Adoption
IOTA’s focus on trade infrastructure, including the Trade Worldwide Information Network (TWIN), gives the project a more specific commercial direction. Digitizing international trade documentation and improving information sharing between businesses are legitimate challenges that blockchain-based infrastructure could help address.
But announcing a use case is not the same as proving its success. The Foundation needs to show which deployments are operating in production, which organizations are using them repeatedly, and what measurable economic benefits they deliver.
Related: The IOTA Token Problem Nobody Wants to Discuss
More importantly, how does this activity translate into demand for IOTA? A business using IOTA-related infrastructure does not automatically create meaningful demand for the network’s native token. If the Foundation wants the community to believe that trade adoption will strengthen the ecosystem, it must explain the economic connection and provide evidence.
The same standard should apply to every partnership and ecosystem initiative. How many active users? How much recurring network activity? How many independent applications? How much real economic activity? These are more useful measures than the number of announcements published in a year.
IOTA Needs Results, Not Another Promise
The Foundation needs to stop treating technical milestones as the ultimate measure of success. It should publish a transparent performance review covering previous roadmaps, explain why strategies changed, and establish a limited set of measurable adoption targets.
It should also explain how network activity creates demand for IOTA, distinguish commercial deployments from pilots, and give the community a meaningful role in scrutinizing major decisions.
Most importantly, it must accept that community patience is not unlimited. People who have supported IOTA for years are entitled to ask difficult questions without being told to wait for the next upgrade or the next adoption announcement.
IOTA does not necessarily need another technological reinvention. It needs stronger execution, greater accountability, and a clear demonstration that its current strategy can deliver sustainable results.
Related: IOTA Price Could Reach $1 If This Technical Breakout Happens
Dominik Schiener should not be expected to leave simply because the market has disappointed investors. But after years of strategic changes, the question of whether new leadership could deliver a different approach deserves a serious discussion.
If the current leadership can deliver, it needs to prove it with measurable results. If it cannot, the Foundation must be willing to change its leadership, governance, or strategy.
The IOTA community has heard enough about what the project could become. It is time to demonstrate what it can actually deliver.
About The Author
