On March 24, 2026, Balancer co-founder Fernando Martinelli announced the closure of Balancer Labs and initiated a comprehensive protocol restructuring plan, outlining a new direction for this previously blue-chip DeFi project. According to public information, the core actions include: the dissolution of the early incubation entity Labs, the entire core team merging into Balancer OpCo, and drastic adjustments to the tokenomics—termination of the veBAL model, cessation of new token emissions, and directing 100% of protocol-generated fees into the DAO treasury. Behind this set of measures is the reality that Fernando referred to as “the corporate entity has become a burden to protocol development,” a self-dismantling following the collision between commercial corporate structures and DAO governance logic. In the context of legal shadows from the v2 vulnerabilities and the contradiction of over one million dollars in annual fees failing to support the token price, Balancer chose to shut down the company, empower the DAO, and rewrite the tokenomics, attempting to carve out a path for itself in the new DeFi landscape.

From Hero to Burden: The Role Reversal of Balancer Labs

In the early development stages of Balancer, Balancer Labs served as the incubation entity, providing comprehensive support for product development, business expansion, and brand building, embodying the typical “company leads protocol” model. The team launched V1, V2, and various innovative attempts around reCLAMM, LBP, and different pools through Labs, propelling Balancer from an automated market-making protocol to an infrastructure for diverse capital strategies. During this phase, the corporate entity was the core engine driving the protocol's growth.

This narrative abruptly halted on March 24, 2026. In a public statement, Fernando directly defined Labs as “having become a burden to protocol development,” announcing its closure and the integration of the core team into Balancer OpCo. This means that the execution entities responsible for protocol development and maintenance—ranging from branding and employment relationships to budget arrangements—are being restructured, with Labs no longer existing as an independent incubation company, yielding to an operational structure more closely aligned with the protocol itself. The motivation is not complex: In an environment of regulatory uncertainty and pressure on token economics, the marginal cost of maintaining a complete corporate entity has become increasingly high, yet it fails to translate into positive feedback for protocol valuation and governance in secondary markets.

In the broader DeFi context, legal, compliance, and operational costs are systematically squeezing the space for entities like Labs. Maintaining a corporation means facing potential licensing requirements, employment compliance, tax filings, and legal risks that are seen as “responsible entities.” Even with protocol revenues exceeding one million dollars in the past three months on an annualized basis, it often proves insufficient to cover the rising compliance premiums. The company became a “sued” address, yet fails to gain compensation commensurate with risks in token prices and governance structures. This is a practical consideration leading Fernando to ultimately choose to remove Labs from the table.

The Shadow of Vulnerabilities Lingers: Legal Entity as an Attack Vector

In November 2025, the Balancer v2 vulnerability incident thrust the protocol into the spotlight. Although the complete financial loss and number of affected accounts remain unreleased, the incident clearly exposed one issue: when a smart contract has security flaws, who is responsible? In decentralized narratives, protocols are often described as “code without responsibility,” yet once real losses occur, regulatory and user scrutiny quickly shifts to the off-chain corporate entity.

In an environment of regulatory uncertainty, DeFi protocols with licenses or clear legal entities can easily be viewed as “subjects of liability.” For Balancer, the existence of Balancer Labs materialized the abstract risks that should be borne by the code and DAO into a corporation with a registered address and a management team of natural persons. This materialization helped establish trust and connect with TradFi institutions in the early stages, but when vulnerabilities, compliance investigations, or potential litigation scenarios arise, it also means a more direct regulatory entry point and targets for claims. The v2 vulnerability incident has become a typical case for the industry to observe this risk transmission path.

Against this backdrop, the current restructuring, which involves closing Labs and reducing the legal entity's exposure, is clearly not just about financial optimization but also about risk defense. Merging the core team into Balancer OpCo while transferring control and funding flows more explicitly to the DAO aims to return the protocol to a narrative of “community governance, code as rules,” while also reducing the probability of a single company being directly locked in as a defendant and regulatory target in similar vulnerability incidents in the future. For regulators, the clearer the responsible entity, the lower the action costs; for the protocol, blurring boundaries and decentralizing decisions within governance has become a pragmatic defensive strategy.

One Million Dollars in Revenue Can't Save the Situation: The Failure of the BAL Tokenomics

Public data shows that Balancer's fee income has exceeded one million dollars annualized in the past three months, which is not bad in the DeFi bear market environment. However, the contradiction lies in the fact that this revenue scale has not effectively supported the long-term value of the veBAL model and the BAL token. As overall liquidity diminishes and competing protocols offer higher immediate yields, the previously attractive incentive mechanisms based on emissions and lock-up designs lose their appeal, leading to a discount on governance rights and yield expectations associated with veBAL amid real selling pressures.

The veBAL and emission mechanisms could maintain the narrative in bull markets through “increasing emissions for liquidity,” but upon entering a bear market, the protocol’s actual cash flow is insufficient to cover the dilution pressures brought by long-term high emissions. For LPs, immediate yields offered by competitors are more appealing; for veBAL holders, the governance rights and dividend expectations obtained through lock-ups become increasingly dim in an environment of low fees and high uncertainty. The result is that BAL is forced into a dilemma between “continuing emissions to pull liquidity” and “diluting stakeholder rights,” ultimately leading to model failure.

One of the core aspects of this restructuring is terminating veBAL, implementing zero emissions, and directing 100% of protocol fees into the DAO. This reform logic is very clear: first, cut off the old path of obtaining liquidity through token emissions to avoid further diluting existing holders; then concentrate all real income into the DAO treasury, allowing value capture to be more directly tied to protocol usage rather than future emission expectations. Through this adjustment, it can be seen that the team attempts to stabilize token prices with “real cash flow + governance treasury” rather than relying on market sentiment-driven leverage expansion. This is not an easy road, but it is the most direct response to the “failure of token economics.”

V3 Introduces Profit Sharing and Buybacks: Finding Balance Between Liquidity and Token Holders

Alongside the reform of tokenomics, there is also a governance proposal to reduce the protocol's share to 25% in the V3 protocol. According to governance discussions, Balancer plans to significantly lower the protocol's commission ratio in V3, giving more income to liquidity providers to attract high-quality LPs, which are increasingly scarce in the competition among multiple chains and protocols. For a project that has already experienced reduced volume in the bear market, this “active profit-sharing” means sacrificing part of short-term revenue in exchange for a more solid liquidity foundation.

The essence of the revenue redistribution is to seek a new equilibrium between “giving liquidity” and “giving to token holders.” On the one hand, reducing the protocol's share can raise the actual returns for LPs, making Balancer more competitive in terms of value for money among peer AMMs, thus enhancing TVL and transaction depth; on the other hand, directing 100% of fees to the DAO and then deciding through governance how to use it—whether for R&D, ecosystem subsidies, or potential future dividends and buybacks—provides BAL holders with another form of indirect revenue channel. Tokens no longer gain “yield expectations” through continuous emissions but acquire value anchoring through control over the DAO treasury budget.

For previous token holders, BAL buyback and other exit arrangements have become key appeasement measures in this round of restructuring. By utilizing the protocol's real income or treasury stock to conduct buybacks in the secondary market, the project has provided compensation paths for early risk-bearing holders to some extent and established a “bottom-betting range” in the market. Holders will engage in a new round of games concerning the buyback intensity, execution rhythm, and governance transparency: whether to choose to accumulate at lows under buyback expectations or view it as a signal of the project entering the “value recovery phase” and opt to exit will directly impact the price performance and liquidity structure of BAL in the near future.

Founder's Retreat: Can DAO Support Dual Pressures of Technology and Governance?

With Fernando's announcement emphasizing the weakening of personal and corporate roles, Balancer is increasingly visibly transferring control to the DAO. The closure of Labs, the team merging into OpCo, and the financial arrangement of 100% of protocol fees going into the DAO mean that future key decisions regarding product routes, fund allocations, and incentive mechanisms will largely be completed in governance forums and votes rather than being finalized by founders and internal company decisions. This marks a structural shift from “founder-centered coordination” to “multi-polar governance.”

The question is, after the founder's halo fades, does the community possess sufficient governance ability and consensus on technical pathways to support the evolution of a complex DeFi protocol? Balancer's product line is not singular; from reCLAMM to LBP, as well as various pools related to stable assets, each line involves different risk parameters, fee structures, and target user groups. In the past, these lines were coordinated by Fernando and his team from a product perspective, but now the DAO needs to make more forward-looking choices after weighing technical complexity, market demand, and risk tolerance.

The competition surrounding who will decide resources and directions will shift from “trust in individuals” to “trust in mechanisms.” Whether the DAO can establish a stable working group system, clear budgeting processes, and sustainable development rhythms will directly determine whether Balancer can maintain technological iteration in the post-founder era. The prioritization of product lines like reCLAMM, LBP, and stable asset-related pools will no longer just be a business judgment but a litmus test of governance maturity: whether resources continue to tilt towards core protocol security and liquidity or bet on innovative products opening new markets will be challenged in governance processes.

After the Exit of Commercial Company: What Chips Are Left in DeFi?

From closing Balancer Labs to restructuring token economics and reducing the influence of founders, Balancer's current restructuring reflects an increasingly clear industry trend: shifting from company-led to protocol and DAO-led. Early DeFi projects relied on companies to undertake multiple functions such as development, compliance, and market education, but as legal risks rise and token valuations decline, companies gradually transformed from “accelerators” to “liabilities,” as protocols actively attempt to extricate themselves from corporate shells, hoping to return to a puritanical form of “pure protocol + pure governance.”

When token economics fail and legal risks heighten, what can DeFi rely on for survival? Balancer offers the answer by betting on three dimensions: first, using real protocol cash flow as the core of value, ceasing to buy into a narrative of inflated emissions; second, by contracting the corporate entity and shifting risk boundaries, dispersing potential regulatory and litigation pressures within the DAO; third, betting on the long-term maturity of community governance and accepting a period of chaos and contention in exchange for a more decentralized and resilient protocol form.

Whether this self-dismantling and restructuring can become a model for the industry remains undecided. One possibility is that Balancer, through zero emissions, treasury inflows into the DAO, V3 profit sharing, and buyback strategies, rebuilds a positive cycle between cash flow and governance, becoming a replicable example of the “post-token inflation era”; another possibility is that this restructuring is interpreted by the market as yet another aftermath of a failed token narrative, marginalizing it amid fiercer liquidity competition. Regardless of where it ultimately goes, Balancer's method of closing labs and diminishing corporate roles has served as a wake-up call for the industry—when the “token + company” framework no longer works, DeFi needs to redefine what it relies on to survive.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。