The post Why ‘Stranger Things’ Would Have Been So Much Better Without Vecna appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Stranger Things Credit: Netflix Unsurprisingly,The post Why ‘Stranger Things’ Would Have Been So Much Better Without Vecna appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Stranger Things Credit: Netflix Unsurprisingly,

Why ‘Stranger Things’ Would Have Been So Much Better Without Vecna

Stranger Things

Credit: Netflix

Unsurprisingly, I received a bit of pushback to my recent post about the main culprit behind the decline of Stranger Things. I argued at the time that while there were many problems with both Season 4 and especially Season 5, many of these can be traced back to Vecna and how the addition of a fantasy Big Bad fundamentally altered the series for the worse.

One counter-argument I’ve heard from fans is that it actually makes perfect sense to introduce a Dark Lord figure in Stranger Things, since this is a show based on Dungeons & Dragons and that game pretty heavily influenced by The Lord of the Rings. In fantasy, of course, a Dark Lord is pretty common, whether that’s Sauron or Voldemort or The Dark One from The Wheel Of Time. Dark Lords are everywhere in fantasy.

The television version of Game Of Thrones introduced its own Dark Lord in the ominous Night King, which is a pretty significant departure from the books by George R.R. Martin. Naturally, the Night King ended up being a rather lackluster Big Bad in the end.

That’s one trouble with Dark Lord archetypes. They’re built up to be these impossibly deadly and evil and cunning foes, and then our much less impressive heroes manage to take them down through grit and determination or just dumb luck.

Sauron was bested by some filthy Hobbitses and their pal, Gollum. Voldemort would have gotten away with conquering Middle-earth if it weren’t for those meddling kids. (The Vecna/Voldemort similarities are actually pretty hilarious). The Night King was built up over seven seasons, with the nightmarish Long Night perpetually on the horizon and an army of the living dead poised to roll across Westeros . . . and then Arya Stark just stabbed him to death out of the blue. I guess “Stick ‘em with the pointy end” was Chekhov’s Gun, after all.

Game of Thrones

Credit: HBO

The same problem arises in Hawkins, Indiana. The Dark Lord, Vecna, has been set up as this super powerful, evil otherworldly necromancer about to literally destroy the world, and we get one of the most lackluster boss fights ever, despite Vecna and the Mind Flayer teaming up. Many people shrug this sort of thing off, saying that it’s really hard to wrap up a five-season arc, that final seasons are often disappointing. I have no doubt of the challenge, but it’s our job as critics of media to take things apart and figure out why they’re not working. Could this series have driven more confidently across the finish line had it abandoned Vecna altogether? Perhaps.

While Stranger Things certainly was influenced heavily by Dungeons & Dragons, there has never been a great deal of Lord of the Rings DNA in the show. It’s always hewed more toward 80s’ era coming-of-age and horror, from Back to the Future to Ghostbusters to E.T. and so forth. Sticking to this type of story for all five seasons would have almost certainly resulted in a better conclusion.

The Mind Flayer, a creature of the Upside Down with no human emotion or motivations, is a much more interesting, Lovecraftian monster than Vecna ever was. Stranger Things should have either kept the Mind Flayer as the chief antagonist or revealed some even greater, more monstrous power behind it and the other eldritch horrors of the Upside Down. So much of Season 4 and 5 were spent building up Vecna, only to have it all flame out in the end.

Season 4 without Vecna could have revolved around some similar events, with the Mind Flayer targeting individuals like Max. The Upside Down itself could have begun seeping into the real world in unsettling ways. A quest to go into the Upside Down to save Max and kill the Mind Flayer once and for all would have been an exciting storyline. Better yet, it wouldn’t require retconning earlier story beats. The show could have gone other directions as well. Time travel is risky, but with the Upside Down frozen in time, you can see how it might work.

Stranger Things

Credit: Netflix

Regardless, choosing cosmic and psychological horror over mythic fantasy would have been a smart direction for Stranger Things, and would have been more thematically consistent with the first three seasons. Even the Season 5 Mind Flayer felt more akin to a dragon or fantasy monster than the shadowy terror we were first introduced to in Season 2.

Other changes I would make along with Vecna’s removal from the storyline:

  • A slimmed down cast. Sorry, Hopper, you should have died at the end of Season 3, and probably a few other characters along with you. At least one or two of the older teens, like the lovable Steve, could have also been killed. Side-characters like Murray should have been written out before becoming caricatures. Adults in general should have had less presence in the show. The genre is not about adults. It’s about kids. Imagine The Goonies with a half dozen adults tramping through the caves. Imagine that movie with the same size cast as Stranger Things.
  • Much less focus on teen romance among the core group. There was enough romance written into the Steve / Jonathan / Nancy subplot. We didn’t need Mike and Eleven to be anything more than friends. I do think that Lucas and Max ending up as a couple in the end, after he helps save her from the Upside Down / Mind Flayer, could have worked. But far too much time was spent on young teen romance and none of it improved the show.
  • No more de-powering Eleven. Eleven should have been at the forefront of Season 5 rather than sidelined by characters like Holly, though the problem was less about Holly and more about the bloated cast in general. Eleven was de-powered in Season 4 and pushed to the side in Season 5. When Will finally gets powers, he’s almost instantly de-powered as well. This kills momentum. Players of D&D will know that once you gain new powers, the last thing you want is to lose them.
  • Cut the entire military subplot. Once the Hawkins Lab people were out of the picture, I’d narrow the focus down to the main characters and their quest to somehow close off the Upside Down and/or kill the Mind Flayer (and the Mind Flayer could have been just one of many, or subservient to an even greater cosmic horror). The show could still include a government subplot, maybe some shadowy investigators poking their noses around, but as it was written, the military was just unforgivably lame.
  • Have Will come out in Season 4 rather than waiting until the end of Season 5 and, if the show insists on giving all the other kids romantic interests, give him one as well (though ideally we should have just avoided all the romance stuff in the younger group, and put an end to the love triangle in the older group much sooner). But if we must include romances for our main characters, put the “Byler” stuff to rest by giving Will a boyfriend or at least a crush.
  • Remove the ambiguity from the ending. Rather than killing off Eleven or leaving her fate a mystery, give her the happy ending she deserves. Neither of the current outcomes are satisfying in the least, though her sacrifice and death was a bold narrative choice until they nerfed it with ambiguity. In the end, Eleven should have been at the D&D table with her friends, the Upside Down closed, her powers gone for good, and a normal life ahead of her filled with love and pain and struggle and joy. I think a lot of people will disagree with me about a lot of other things in this post, but maybe we can all agree on this.

I should note, before we leave, that none of this is a critique of Jamie Campbell Bower, who played Henry / 001 / Vecna with enormous skill and talent. Even if Vecna was cut, in a perfect world Bower would have gotten some other great role in the show. Maybe a character with powers who was also investigating the Upside Down, but with nefarious motives. A secondary antagonist of some kind. Just not the Big Bad fantasy Dark Lord.

Ultimately, removing Vecna from the story wouldn’t fix all its problems, but without him, Stranger Things would have felt more like, well, Stranger Things. What do you think?

Let me know on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2026/01/21/why-stranger-things-would-have-been-so-much-better-without-vecna/

Market Opportunity
SQUID MEME Logo
SQUID MEME Price(GAME)
$40.0919
$40.0919$40.0919
+0.39%
USD
SQUID MEME (GAME) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Fed Acts on Economic Signals with Rate Cut

Fed Acts on Economic Signals with Rate Cut

In a significant pivot, the Federal Reserve reduced its benchmark interest rate following a prolonged ten-month hiatus. This decision, reflecting a strategic response to the current economic climate, has captured attention across financial sectors, with both market participants and policymakers keenly evaluating its potential impact.Continue Reading:Fed Acts on Economic Signals with Rate Cut
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 02:28
Iran’s Central Bank Spends $500M on Crypto Amid Rial Crisis

Iran’s Central Bank Spends $500M on Crypto Amid Rial Crisis

Iran's Central Bank has reportedly acquired more than $500 million in cryptocurrency assets over the past year to mitigate the ongoing currency crisis.
Share
coinlineup2026/01/22 08:59
Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders

Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders

BitcoinWorld Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders The dynamic world of decentralized finance (DeFi) is constantly evolving, bringing forth new opportunities and innovations. A significant development is currently unfolding at Curve Finance, a leading decentralized exchange (DEX). Its founder, Michael Egorov, has put forth an exciting proposal designed to offer a more direct path for token holders to earn revenue. This initiative, centered around a new Curve Finance revenue sharing model, aims to bolster the value for those actively participating in the protocol’s governance. What is the “Yield Basis” Proposal and How Does it Work? At the core of this forward-thinking initiative is a new protocol dubbed Yield Basis. Michael Egorov introduced this concept on the CurveDAO governance forum, outlining a mechanism to distribute sustainable profits directly to CRV holders. Specifically, it targets those who stake their CRV tokens to gain veCRV, which are essential for governance participation within the Curve ecosystem. Let’s break down the initial steps of this innovative proposal: crvUSD Issuance: Before the Yield Basis protocol goes live, $60 million in crvUSD will be issued. Strategic Fund Allocation: The funds generated from the sale of these crvUSD tokens will be strategically deployed into three distinct Bitcoin-based liquidity pools: WBTC, cbBTC, and tBTC. Pool Capping: To ensure balanced risk and diversified exposure, each of these pools will be capped at $10 million. This carefully designed structure aims to establish a robust and consistent income stream, forming the bedrock of a sustainable Curve Finance revenue sharing mechanism. Why is This Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Significant for CRV Holders? This proposal marks a pivotal moment for CRV holders, particularly those dedicated to the long-term health and governance of Curve Finance. Historically, generating revenue for token holders in the DeFi space can often be complex. The Yield Basis proposal simplifies this by offering a more direct and transparent pathway to earnings. By staking CRV for veCRV, holders are not merely engaging in governance; they are now directly positioned to benefit from the protocol’s overall success. The significance of this development is multifaceted: Direct Profit Distribution: veCRV holders are set to receive a substantial share of the profits generated by the Yield Basis protocol. Incentivized Governance: This direct financial incentive encourages more users to stake their CRV, which in turn strengthens the protocol’s decentralized governance structure. Enhanced Value Proposition: The promise of sustainable revenue sharing could significantly boost the inherent value of holding and staking CRV tokens. Ultimately, this move underscores Curve Finance’s dedication to rewarding its committed community and ensuring the long-term vitality of its ecosystem through effective Curve Finance revenue sharing. Understanding the Mechanics: Profit Distribution and Ecosystem Support The distribution model for Yield Basis has been thoughtfully crafted to strike a balance between rewarding veCRV holders and supporting the wider Curve ecosystem. Under the terms of the proposal, a substantial portion of the value generated by Yield Basis will flow back to those who contribute to the protocol’s governance. Returns for veCRV Holders: A significant share, specifically between 35% and 65% of the value generated by Yield Basis, will be distributed to veCRV holders. This flexible range allows for dynamic adjustments based on market conditions and the protocol’s performance. Ecosystem Reserve: Crucially, 25% of the Yield Basis tokens will be reserved exclusively for the Curve ecosystem. This allocation can be utilized for various strategic purposes, such as funding ongoing development, issuing grants, or further incentivizing liquidity providers. This ensures the continuous growth and innovation of the platform. The proposal is currently undergoing a democratic vote on the CurveDAO governance forum, giving the community a direct voice in shaping the future of Curve Finance revenue sharing. The voting period is scheduled to conclude on September 24th. What’s Next for Curve Finance and CRV Holders? The proposed Yield Basis protocol represents a pioneering approach to sustainable revenue generation and community incentivization within the DeFi landscape. If approved by the community, this Curve Finance revenue sharing model has the potential to establish a new benchmark for how decentralized exchanges reward their most dedicated participants. It aims to foster a more robust and engaged community by directly linking governance participation with tangible financial benefits. This strategic move by Michael Egorov and the Curve Finance team highlights a strong commitment to innovation and strengthening the decentralized nature of the protocol. For CRV holders, a thorough understanding of this proposal is crucial for making informed decisions regarding their staking strategies and overall engagement with one of DeFi’s foundational platforms. FAQs about Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Q1: What is the main goal of the Yield Basis proposal? A1: The primary goal is to establish a more direct and sustainable way for CRV token holders who stake their tokens (receiving veCRV) to earn revenue from the Curve Finance protocol. Q2: How will funds be generated for the Yield Basis protocol? A2: Initially, $60 million in crvUSD will be issued and sold. The funds from this sale will then be allocated to three Bitcoin-based pools (WBTC, cbBTC, and tBTC), with each pool capped at $10 million, to generate profits. Q3: Who benefits from the Yield Basis revenue sharing? A3: The proposal states that between 35% and 65% of the value generated by Yield Basis will be returned to veCRV holders, who are CRV stakers participating in governance. Q4: What is the purpose of the 25% reserve for the Curve ecosystem? A4: This 25% reserve of Yield Basis tokens is intended to support the broader Curve ecosystem, potentially funding development, grants, or other initiatives that contribute to the platform’s growth and sustainability. Q5: When is the vote on the Yield Basis proposal? A5: A vote on the proposal is currently underway on the CurveDAO governance forum and is scheduled to run until September 24th. If you found this article insightful and valuable, please consider sharing it with your friends, colleagues, and followers on social media! Your support helps us continue to deliver important DeFi insights and analysis to a wider audience. To learn more about the latest DeFi market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping decentralized finance institutional adoption. This post Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 00:35