Balancer proposes liquidating and paying $9 million to BAL holders
Marcus Hardt has submitted a governance proposal calling for the orderly termination of the Balancer protocol, distributing the remaining funds in the treasury, worth at least $9 million, to BAL holders who burned their tokens.
9/16/20264 min read
Security vulnerabilities are the starting point for decline.
Balancer suffered a $128 million security breach in November 2025, affecting Composable Stable Pools v2 across multiple chains. Blockchain security firm BlockSec, which issued a warning just hours after the attack and published a detailed analysis report in February 2026, confirmed the root cause was price manipulation perpetrated by an inaccuracy in the immutable calculation. The specific error was an inconsistency between how the protocol rounded up during scaling and rounded down during descaling, a difference that distorted the Balancer Pool token price and allowed the attacker to manipulate pool balances during token swaps.
The vulnerability lay not in the protocol's economic design or access control measures, but in the mathematics. An inconsistency in rounding, a type of error that might seem trivial in isolation, accumulated in the swap mechanism and resulted in a $128 million loss. This type of error is among the most difficult to detect during auditing because the code works exactly as written and the error only appears in specific sequences of operations that counter-testing might not uncover.
Revenue Collapse Through the Numbers
The Balancer protocol's monthly revenue showed an unusually sharp decline. In October 2025, the month before the attack, revenue reached $1.13 million. In November, the month of the attack, revenue had fallen to just $371,000. By August 2026, monthly revenue had dropped to $56,781.
That's a 95% drop in ten months. The attack targeted specific v2 pools, and while Balancer's v3 architecture is structurally different, the reputational damage was indistinguishable between versions. Users didn't differentiate between protocol versions when deciding whether to deposit liquidity, and v3 revenue never reached v2 levels despite the technical separation. Balancer Labs, the protocol's parent company, ceased operations in March 2026 after executives concluded that maintaining the company was too costly due to the litigation stemming from the attack.
The streamlined restructuring process preceded this proposal.
Prior to the proposed closure, the DAO attempted a restructuring that was approved by investors throughout March and April 2026. BIP-918 consolidated operations under Balancer OpCo Limited following the closure of Balancer Labs, reducing the number of full-time employees from approximately 25 to 12.5, and cutting the annual budget from approximately $2.87 million to $1.9 million. BIP-919, announced on March 23, completely ceased BAL issuance, terminated the veBAL economic rights, transferred 100% of protocol fees to the DAO treasury, and allowed buybacks and burns up to 35% of the treasury balance at the time of snapshot, approximately $3.6 million at the time, conducted at net asset value.
This package was designed to extend operating time and project a smaller deficit under neutral assumptions. Six months later, with revenue reaching $56,781 per month, the restructuring process had not yielded the expected recovery, which is why Hardt recommended ceasing operations rather than continuing cost-cutting.
What remains after the shutdown?
The source code remains open source, allowing anyone to replicate the protocol and continue operating it independently. This isn't just a symbolic gesture. Balancer's weighted pool-based automated market-making design has truly had a major impact on the evolution of DeFi, and the v3 architecture introduced modular hooks and custom pool logic that other protocols have referenced.
What no longer exists is the coordinating entity: the DAO funded development, the treasury supported operations, the team maintained the source code, and the governance process decided the direction of the protocol. A replicant branch would inherit the source code but without any of that infrastructure.
The exit lists, broken down by group, have yet to be released, leaving open the possibility of suspending specific contracts and whether liquidity will shift to copycat forks, move to competing protocols, or simply leave DeFi altogether. For liquidity providers, that unreleased list is operationally crucial, as it determines whether their specific positions face an orderly or abrupt withdrawal window.
Assessment and Conclusion
At its peak, Balancer held approximately $3 billion in total value locked (TVL) and was among the few protocols that defined the automated market maker (AMM) model, along with Uniswap and Curve. Its weighted pools allowed for arbitrary token ratios instead of the fixed 50-50 ratios required by earlier AMMs, a design that enabled portfolio-like liquidity and had a widespread impact on later AMM architecture.
If approved, the shutdown would make Balancer the largest DeFi protocol to voluntarily dissolve rather than gradually disappear. Loopring shut down its zk-rollup DEX in early 2026. BounceBit shut down its chain after a security vulnerability. Harmony proposed shutting down Layer 1 and migrating to Ethereum. Balancer was larger than any of those protocols in terms of past TVL and its impact on the technical development of DeFi.
If the vote fails, Balancer will continue operating on monthly revenue of $56,781 against an annual budget of $1.9 million, a deficit that the reserve fund will finance until it runs out. The implicit argument in this proposal is that distributing $9 million to shareholders now would yield better results than spending that money on operations that cannot be sustained by revenue.
Disclaimer: The content in this article is for informational, research, data analysis, and reference purposes only regarding the cryptocurrency market. All opinions, assessments, forecasts, or opinions reflect the author's perspective at the time of publication and do not constitute investment advice, solicitations for buying or selling, trading recommendations, advertising, marketing, or promotion of any financial products, services, or cryptocurrencies. Mentions of projects, tokens, protocols, exchanges, wallets, or cryptocurrency service providers (CASPs) are for research, analysis, or informational purposes only and should not be construed as endorsements, recommendations, or guarantees in any way. HCCVenture does not broker, advertise, market, promote, or connect users in Vietnam with any cryptocurrency services from CASPs. HCCVenture does not accept asset custody, investment mandates, manage assets, or execute transactions on behalf of clients. All investment decisions are made entirely through the reader's own research (DYOR), evaluation, and responsibility; HCCVenture is not liable for any losses or damages arising from the use of or reliance on the information presented in this article.
Compiled and analyzed by HCCVenture
Join our information channels: https://link3.to/holdcoincventure
Explore HCCVenture group
HCCVENTURE QUANT JSCO
© 2026 HCCVENTURE. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED.
Connect with us
Popular content
Contact to us
Address: 8th Floor, Bach Dang Complex Building, 50 Bach Dang Street, Hai Chau Ward, Da Nang City, Vietnam.
Phone: 1900 1509
Gmail : sp_contact@hccventure.com
Disclaimer: The information on this website is for informational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice. We are not responsible for any risks or losses arising from investment decisions based on the content here.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS • CUSTOMER PROTECTION POLICY
ANALYTICAL AND NEWS CONTENT IS COMPILED AND PROVIDED BY EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF DIGITAL FINANCE AND BLOCKCHAIN BELONGING TO HCCVENTURE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING OWNERSHIP OF THE CONTENT.
RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING ALL CONTENT AND ANALYSIS: HCCVENTURE FOUNDER - TRUONG MINH HUY
Read warnings about scams and phishing emails — REPORT A PROBLEM WITH OUR SITE.
