A decentralized exchange protocol, and now it’s time to seriously discuss how to close the doors.
A proposal appeared on Balancer’s governance forum, outlining a structured exit plan: stop creating new liquidity pools, gradually reduce protocol activity, and finally distribute the remaining treasury assets to BAL holders. At the moment, it’s still only in the forum stage; the Snapshot vote is expected to take place from September 25 to 29, and nothing has been approved yet.
Crypto projects spend far more time in the opening phase than in the closing phase. A mature protocol will eventually have to deal with declining activity, rising maintenance costs, and fragmented liquidity. These problems won’t just disappear on their own. If you don’t manage the exit, users will get stuck in old pools, treasury assets will be scattered along the way, and governance will slowly turn into a mere formality.
That is what this proposal aims to prevent. Not walking away, but providing market makers with time to exit in stages—and also giving the remaining assets a path forward.
The real difficulty is in the distribution. Which assets count, how should claims be valued, and what responsibilities remain—these must be clarified one by one.
The proposal also leaves an unanswered question. After the protocol stops, in what order should the market-making positions in the pools unwind? Who will own the positions that remain in the pools? These details have not been decided. For a protocol that entrusts assets to code custody, this is also the hardest part to write into the terms.
Ending gracefully is harder than starting with dignity.
#去中心化金融 #governance
A proposal appeared on Balancer’s governance forum, outlining a structured exit plan: stop creating new liquidity pools, gradually reduce protocol activity, and finally distribute the remaining treasury assets to BAL holders. At the moment, it’s still only in the forum stage; the Snapshot vote is expected to take place from September 25 to 29, and nothing has been approved yet.
Crypto projects spend far more time in the opening phase than in the closing phase. A mature protocol will eventually have to deal with declining activity, rising maintenance costs, and fragmented liquidity. These problems won’t just disappear on their own. If you don’t manage the exit, users will get stuck in old pools, treasury assets will be scattered along the way, and governance will slowly turn into a mere formality.
That is what this proposal aims to prevent. Not walking away, but providing market makers with time to exit in stages—and also giving the remaining assets a path forward.
The real difficulty is in the distribution. Which assets count, how should claims be valued, and what responsibilities remain—these must be clarified one by one.
The proposal also leaves an unanswered question. After the protocol stops, in what order should the market-making positions in the pools unwind? Who will own the positions that remain in the pools? These details have not been decided. For a protocol that entrusts assets to code custody, this is also the hardest part to write into the terms.
Ending gracefully is harder than starting with dignity.
#去中心化金融 #governance
