In technology, decisive leadership is often romanticised after the fact and criticised in real time. When Gurhan Kiziloz, founder of BlockDAG, moved to fire the project’s CEO and senior executives, the reaction across cryptoAn Underdog’s Instinct for ControlCompression Before ScaleA Pattern, Not a Provocation
What distinguishes this episode from typical crypto turmoil is its consistency with Kiziloz’s broader record. At Nexus and Spartans, he resisted premature institutionalisation until systems were proven. At BlockDAG, he reversed institutionalisation once it arrived too early. In both cases, the principle is the same: scale should follow execution, not precede it. The market’s reaction to the firings has been mixed. Some see instability. Others see overdue discipline. Both interpretations are plausible. Founder-led resets are inherently volatile. They can produce exceptional focus or catastrophic blind spots. There are no guarantees. What is clear is that Kiziloz has positioned himself squarely behind the outcome. With a personal fortune estimated at $1.2 billion, he is not acting out of desperation. Nor is he insulated from consequences. By reclaiming control, he has also reclaimed responsibility. In an industry crowded with founders who defer difficult decisions until external pressure forces them, that willingness stands out. Kiziloz’s path from early failure to seasoned operator has shaped a leadership style that prizes clarity over comfort. It has made him an underdog even at the top, suspicious of hierarchy, impatient with stagnation, and willing to absorb short-term shock to avoid long-term decay. Whether BlockDAG ultimately succeeds will depend on what follows this reset. Execution will matter more than intent. But the intervention itself leaves little ambiguity about how the project will be run. Hierarchy is provisional. Delivery is compulsory. And when leadership becomes an obstacle rather than an asset, even at the highest level, it is removed. For a founder who has built, lost, rebuilt, and scaled again, that stance is less a gamble than a conclusion.About Author
