A Balancer contributor has published a governance proposal to wind down the decentralized exchange and return its treasury to token holders, a move that would close out one of DeFi’s longest-running automated market makers. The proposal, filed on Balancer’s official forum on September 14 , calls for no new business development, a phased shutdown, and the distribution of a DAO treasury worth at least $9 million at current prices to BAL holders.
The Proposal and Timeline
The plan is a series of dates that only move if holders approve it. Contributor notice already began on August 27 and runs to October 31. A Snapshot vote is scheduled for September 25-29. If it passes, pausable pools shift to withdrawals only on October 30, 2026, the same day bug-bounty coverage ends. A first distribution round would open at the end of May 2027, once existing veBAL locks have expired, when holders burn BAL to claim a pro-rata share of the treasury in kind. A second round would airdrop unspent funds and later arrivals within two months of the close, followed by a final sweep by the end of July 2028.
Why Balancer Is Considering a Shutdown
The proposal’s author frames the decision around runway and revenue. Balancer still earns most of its income from v2 pools, while v3 – rolled out on Avalanche with a focus on yield and efficiency – is live but has not grown enough to replace it. Protocol revenue fell to roughly $30,000 in August from about $97,000 in June, against a monthly burn of about $150,000, and key contributors have left or stepped back over the past year. The author also cites the November 2025 exploit on legacy v2 pools as a further drag on traction.
What BAL Holders Would Receive
The proposal cancels the BIP-919 buyback and sets aside a $400,000 winddown budget, with anything unspent flowing back into the distribution. The treasury would be paid out in kind and pro rata over circulating supply, with BAL itself excluded, and nothing is paid before the first round. Funds recovered from past attacks stay separate and go to the affected liquidity providers. The plan has not yet been voted on, and a “no” vote would keep the existing framework in place – leaving the future of one of DeFi’s most established protocols an open question.
