Alpacafinance
Alpacafinance shutdown plans set different settlement paths for farms, vaults, and Money Market positions
Alpacafinance shutdown plans put AF1.0 loan repayment ahead of returning any remaining value to the position owner. Alpaca Finance announced the wind-down on May 26, 2025, with separate arrangements for each product. Automated Vaults were to stop their strategies, repay loans, and convert assets into each vault's base token. Alperp was to enter reduce-only mode immediately. The schedule targeted remaining AF1.0 and Alperp positions for closure by June 30, 2025; AF2.0 Money Market positions had a July 30, 2025 target. These were announced plans, and each owner's settlement depended on the affected product and remaining assets.
AF1.0's scheduled closure covered positions still active by June 30, 2025, including positions owners had not closed voluntarily.
Product records determined the applicable exit plan
The relevant product determined whether the plan concerned a farming loan, an automated strategy, a perpetual trading position, or Money Market borrowing. AF1.0 identified the original leveraged yield farming system. AF2.0 identified the later Money Market, whose closure mechanism differed. Automated Vaults and Alperp had their own instructions. Identify the product, asset, and network in your existing position or deposit records. The project had operated on BNB Chain and Fantom, and historical instructions sometimes applied to a particular network.
A familiar asset name alone could not identify the product holding it or establish the settlement route.
AF1.0 closure put debt ahead of the owner's remainder
An AF1.0 farming position left active until the scheduled close faced settlement from its position assets. Start by reading a saved AF1.0 position record. Note the borrowed asset and recorded debt, without approving assets or submitting a transaction. The announced sequence distinguished restricting new entries from settling outstanding farming positions.
| AF1.0 stage | Planned change | Treatment of position assets |
|---|---|---|
| Restrict new positions | Disable opening farm positions by the first week of June 2025. | Existing position assets still backed their farming loans. |
| Close and repay | Automatically close positions still active by June 30, 2025, and repay their loans. | Position assets first covered the outstanding loan. |
| Return remaining value | Return any value left after repayment to the position owner. | The owner was due the remainder, if any. |
| This sequence concerned farming positions; lenders' shares in lending pools represented separate claims. | ||
The May 2025 wind-down plan placed AF1.0 loan repayment before returning any remaining value to the position owner. Borrowed capital formed part of the farming position, so its gross value could exceed the owner's recoverable balance. The announced return concerned the remainder after debt settlement. It did not promise repayment of the original deposit in full.
If the record does not identify the product or outstanding loan, pause the review before authorizing a transaction. Resume when the missing details are available; pausing the review does not keep the underlying position unchanged. The AF1.0 sequence could not establish the exit terms for another product.
Automated Vaults were due to settle in their base token
The Automated Vault plan called for an immediate stop to strategies, followed by loan repayment and conversion into each vault's base token.
Ending the strategy
Vault strategies used borrowed capital, so terminating farming activity left a financing obligation to resolve. Automated management had previously handled the farming positions.
Converting the remaining assets
Conversion specified the asset denomination for settlement. The announcement gave BNB Savings Vaults as an example: their assets were to convert into BNB. Other Automated Vaults were to use their respective base tokens.
Alperp's reduce-only restriction preceded its closure target
The wind-down plan called for an immediate switch to reduce-only mode, permitting only reductions in Alperp position sizes. An unchanged position could still remain open during that restricted period, which explained the separate closure target. The announcement scheduled automatic closure of any remaining active Alperp positions by June 30, 2025.
How did AF2.0's deadline differ from the June closures?
AF2.0 Money Market positions had a planned July 30, 2025 closure target, one month after the AF1.0 and Alperp targets.
Stopping borrowing while loans remained
The Money Market plan called for disabling borrowing and encouraged users to repay loans and close their positions. Disabling new borrowing would not repay existing loans.
Making remaining positions available for repurchase
The announced mechanism involved changing the borrowing factor to allow remaining positions to be repurchased. This was the specified route for the July closure target. It did not supply a universal repurchase price, fee, or amount an owner would receive. Applying an old AF1.0 liquidation parameter to this Money Market process would mix separate product rules.
The front-end commitment ran through December 2025
The promised front-end access period extended beyond the position-closure targets to give users time to withdraw assets. Alpaca Finance's May 26, 2025 announcement committed to maintaining its front end through December 31, 2025. That commitment concerned the website interface. It did not describe an individual withdrawal's processing time or make every product available for new activity throughout that period. The commitment also left access after December 2025 unspecified. A later attempt to withdraw could not rely on that historical promise as confirmation of an available interface.
Lending liquidity affected the return of pool assets
The original lending design identified high pool utilization as a possible cause of delayed asset returns. Lenders held interest-bearing tokens representing shares in a lending pool, while borrowers used some of that pool's assets. A pool share recorded a claim on assets; it did not mean the full underlying amount always sat idle. During the protocol's operating period, a withdrawal could therefore face a liquidity constraint even when the lender still held the corresponding receipt tokens.
This distinction explained why a farming closure schedule could not alone establish every lender's withdrawal outcome. Closing a borrowing position and repaying its loan returned capital toward the lending side. Actual withdrawal capacity still concerned the relevant pool's available assets. The utilization risk concerned access to pool assets, while the farming owner's remainder depended on settlement of the individual position.
Earlier migrations changed the meaning of older balances
Some AF1.0 assets had already moved into AF2.0 before the full shutdown announcement. Alpaca Finance's October 2023 Recap, published November 9, 2023, reported completion of the first AIP-25 migration. Remaining farming positions borrowing BTCB, ETH, and USDC had closed, and the corresponding lending assets had migrated to AF2.0 pools. An old AF1.0 deposit involving those assets could therefore relate to that earlier migration. The original deposit date or a familiar token ticker could not establish which product held the later claim.
The same recap reported AUSD's sunset complete. Its earlier wind-down was a distinct event from the May 2025 plan covering all products.
Governance revenue had a limited destination and duration
The wind-down plan called for stopping weekly buybacks and burns and redirecting the buyback portion of revenue to Governance Vault stakers for the remainder of operations. It did not describe distribution of every protocol asset to every ALPACA holder. Historical staking rewards or earlier weekly burn reports could not establish an ongoing distribution after operations ended.
Did scheduled closure dates prove every withdrawal finished?
No, the announced dates described planned position closures and did not establish the completed withdrawal outcome for every owner. A closed position, a repaid loan, and an asset transfer recorded different events. Settlement records could establish the debt discharged and value assigned to an owner; a transfer record could establish the asset, amount, and recipient. A date alone supplied none of those balance-specific amounts. A later product-specific settlement notice or transaction could change that answer, provided it concerned the same balance and network.
Popular questions about Alpacafinance shutdown
Were healthy AF1.0 positions included in the planned automatic closure?
Yes. When reading an AF1.0 position record, check whether the position was still active for the planned June 30, 2025 closure. The schedule covered every remaining active position, including those below their liquidation thresholds. Ordinary liquidation depended on a position reaching its configured debt-ratio limit. The announced wind-down used a scheduled product closure, so a position did not need to become unhealthy first.
Was Alperp's reduce-only mode a restriction on ALPACA token trading?
Alperp's planned reduce-only mode would allow users only to reduce the sizes of existing perpetual trading positions. That product restriction did not establish the trading or withdrawal terms for an ALPACA token balance held on an exchange, where the exchange's own arrangements governed the balance.
Could BNB Savings Vault conversion remove exposure to BNB's price?
Conversion into BNB would have left the settlement value exposed to BNB's price in other currencies. The wind-down plan named BNB as the base token for BNB Savings Vaults. It did not promise a fixed dollar payout, and it did not name BNB as the base token for every other vault.
What led the team to plan exits across all products?
Alpaca Finance attributed the full wind-down to declining revenue and an unsustainable operating position. Its May 26, 2025 announcement reported more than two years of operating losses despite downsizing. It also described unsuccessful merger and acquisition talks and the impact of ALPACA's Binance delisting. Those were the team's stated reasons for ending operations.
Did the announcement give a processing time for voluntary AF1.0 exits?
The May 26, 2025 announcement encouraged owners to close AF1.0 positions as soon as possible without specifying a per-withdrawal processing duration. June 30, 2025 concerned automatic closure of positions still active. That calendar target did not state how many minutes or hours an individual voluntary exit would take.
Last updated -