# How the Bet Went

Source: https://x.com/marcus_balancer/status/2099582313063420054
Kiwi News: https://news.kiwistand.com/stories/How-the-Bet-Went?index=0x6aa8e2433eeade0f09cb94f563b01629bdace1868a6e5806a281f85641620a6eff845c15
Submitted by misha on 2026-09-15 UTC, 2 upvotes, 0 comments

## Summary

The author of this post, Balancer's leader, reports that the restructuring bet failed on revenue despite cost cuts and delivered products. Holders approved two proposals in April that cut emissions, simplified the token model, routed protocol fees to the DAO, and reduced the operating budget by a third, shrinking the team from roughly 25 people to 12.5 full time equivalents. The v3 products shipped, including Boosted Pools and reCLAMM (now AutoRange Pools), but most protocol revenue still comes from v2 and v3 revenue has not grown to replace it. The post proposes a winddown, says the code will stay open source, and says the author will not front a continuation plan.

## Article

In March, I wrote that the restructuring was a bet: end emissions, route revenue to the treasury, cut the structure down to what the protocol could carry, and see whether a smaller, focused team could build revenue on v3. Two proposals put that plan to holders, and they approved both in April.

That is the bet. This is how it went.

In January, I wrote about the year before that: ten months of execution on v3, then November 3rd. The recovery work I described is still active.

Emissions ended, and with them what veBAL was for. The token model was simplified. Protocol fees route in full to the DAO. The operating budget came down by a third, and the team went from roughly 25 people to 12.5 full time equivalents, as BIP-918 set out.

On the cost side, the plan was executed.

Revenue is where it went wrong.

We delivered the products we had committed to. Boosted Pools kept running as the flagship. reCLAMM, now AutoRange Pools, went through its security work and shipped, and it was the product we expected to carry the protocol to profitability. We kept the integration pipeline open.

Some of it generated real interest. We had conversations that went deep, with teams that wanted what v3 does and other AMMs do not.

What did not come was enough revenue. Most of the protocol's revenue still comes from v2, and v3 revenue has not grown to replace it.

The product worked. It did not sell enough.

The exploit hurt people who trusted Balancer, and I understood why it changed how people saw us.

Every conversation since November started with what happened, what changed and why v3 is different. We answered those questions every time. Most people accepted the answers, but decisions still took longer and commitments were smaller.

It is not the whole reason. It is a bigger part than I gave it in March.

For the holders who backed April, and for the LPs and partners who built on v3, I know this is not the outcome anyone wanted.

Two things I got wrong. I thought v3 could rebuild confidence in Balancer. I underestimated how much the exploit would continue to limit adoption. And I read the early hesitation from partners as a few cautious teams, when it was the market.

By August, I could no longer see how we would keep building at the level v3 needed.

I do not see a funded path that changes this picture, and spending the treasury on a path that has already been tried is not fair to the people it belongs to. That is why I am putting the winddown proposal forward, and why I will not front a continuation plan.

The code is open source and stays that way. Anyone who wants to fork it, adapt it and run it under their own name is free to, and I would like to see that happen. Some of the team are looking at exactly that. The forum is open to them and to anyone else.

I led it. The calls along the way were mine, and so is the outcome.

A word about the people, because the work deserves it.

They built v3 and kept it safe through the hardest year the protocol has had, kept it usable across every chain while the infrastructure shrank under them, kept the pipeline alive when every first call started with November, and carried the restructuring, the audits and the recovery framework, most of it invisible.

They did this on a smaller team and with less money. They have my full support: references, introductions, and public credit for what they built. If you are hiring, talk to me about them.

And the partners. Protocols that built products on top of v3, teams that integrated when integrating with Balancer was not the easy choice, and the people who showed up in November when it would have been easier not to. You did not owe us any of it. It is the part of this I will miss most.

The proposal is on the forum. It says what I am asking holders to decide, what it costs, what happens to the treasury, and what happens if it does not pass.

Read it. Challenge it. Vote on it.