Foreword 

Other protocols are publishing polished Q1 updates. We're doing something different. 2025 changed Euler — billions in deposits, an industry crisis, a leadership transition in January, and hard lessons about what it takes to build something that lasts. Rather than packaging that into a highlight reel, we'd rather give you the full picture: what worked, what didn't, and what comes next. If DeFi is going to be better than the system it aims to replace, we can't hide problems behind polished narratives. 

This is Euler's honest account.

In September 2024, Euler V2 launched. Eighteen months after a devastating exploit that nearly ended the project, we shipped a completely new protocol — rebuilt from the ground up, battle-tested through tens of independent security audits, and architecturally unlike anything else in DeFi lending at the time. Modular vaults. Composable collateral through the Ethereum Vault Connector. Isolation by design. The smart contract layer was genuinely innovative, and I believe it still is.

But none of that mattered to the market. When V2 went live, the Euler brand carried a scar. Trust was gone. Doors that opened for well-funded competitors with fresh war chests remained firmly shut for us. We were starting from zero in a market that doesn't give second chances easily.

I became CTO of Euler Labs exactly a year ago. Together with Jonathan, our new CEO, we are now formally completing the leadership transition and taking full responsibility for the company's direction. This post reflects the perspective of Euler Labs as a contributor to the protocol. Where it touches on DAO matters — fees, market sunsetting — these are recommendations that will go through proper governance processes. Where it touches on Labs' own operations — team, strategy, product direction — those decisions are ours to make. Some of this will be uncomfortable. But I believe Euler's credibility depends on being straightforward about where we are.

Euler grew to over $4 billion in deposits in under a year. That's a real achievement. But much of that growth was built on a fragile foundation, and when the ground shook, the cracks showed. 

What Euler Built

I want to start with what's genuinely good, because it matters for understanding what must improve. The problems at Euler were never about the core technology.

The Euler Vault Kit and the Ethereum Vault Connector are, in my biased opinion, the most flexible lending infrastructure in DeFi today. A single vault is the primitive unit — and from that primitive, you can construct virtually any market structure: simple isolated pairs with no rehypothecation, pairs with rehypothecation, clusters around a single borrow asset with multiple collaterals, or fully cross-collateralized markets. The protocol doesn't prescribe a structure. It gives builders the tools to design their own.

The EVC goes further. It introduces sub-accounts and batching that enable complex operations — opening a leveraged position, adjusting collateral, and rebalancing — in a single transaction. The operator concept allows external contracts to act on behalf of a user's sub-account, enabling intents, automated position management, and layered products built on top of the protocol — including Euler Swap itself. Vault hooks allow custom logic around deposits, borrows, liquidations, and compliance controls, which turns out to be critical for regulated assets. We worked with Keyring to build KYC-powered vaults. We integrated Securitize's tokenized equities with complex compliance requirements. 

Beyond lending, the team shipped an ambitious range of products and concepts. Euler Swap generated significant swap volume within weeks of launching, with minimal TVL — a striking proof of concept for credit-based market making where liquidity providers can borrow on demand to support swaps. It ultimately couldn't be sustained — a single swap operator could push illiquid vaults into full utilization, destabilizing interest rate curves and making borrowing unpredictable for everyone else. We weren't able to solve the issue in time, and the product's own UX remained unfinished. A case of shipping something before it was truly ready. A genuinely innovative idea that needed a more mature platform underneath it. 

EulerEarn introduced managed yield vaults. The oracle infrastructure is modular and oracle-agnostic, supporting Chainlink, Pyth, RedStone, Chronicle, and custom adapters. Fee Flow pioneered a decentralized, MEV-resistant fee auction mechanism. Internally, there were designs for fixed-rate lending, synthetic assets, and more — genuinely novel ideas that pushed the boundaries of what on-chain credit can do.

On the growth side, the numbers were impressive. From zero to over $4 billion in deposits within a year of V2's launch. Expansion across multiple chains — Ethereum as the core network, with Avalanche, Sonic, Plasma and others gaining meaningful traction. Early partnerships brought unique use cases to Euler — Usual launched its Stability Loan product on the protocol, using Euler's vault infrastructure for over a year before eventually building their own system. It demonstrated exactly the model we believe in: the protocol as rails, used by others to build their own products.

When the Stream Finance crisis hit in late 2025, the architecture did what it was designed to do. The vault isolation model contained the blast radius. DAO-managed markets on Euler had zero direct exposure to Stream's toxic assets. That said, I want to be honest about this: it was partly good design and partly good fortune. At one point, the DAO was close to onboarding Elixir-linked assets as collateral — assets that would later default in the same crisis. Euler’s primary risk advisor at the time endorsed the onboarding. It was another advisor who flagged the concern and stopped it. If that call hadn't been made, the story could have been very different. Architecture creates the conditions for safety, but it doesn't replace competent risk management.

The protocol works. The smart contract layer is sound. The innovation is real. Where Euler has fallen short was in the organizational structures around it, and in prioritizing TVL over the quality of that growth.

The Challenges Euler Faced

Many of the issues I'm about to describe are not fully resolved. The difference is that we've identified them, we're honest about them, and we are actively working to address them.

It was never decided what Euler is

Euler V1 was a product — a lending application, comparable to Aave or Compound. Euler V2 was designed as something fundamentally different: a protocol. Infrastructure that others would build on top of. The vision was clear on paper.

In practice, Euler tried to be both at once.

The trust deficit from the exploit meant we couldn't simply launch the protocol and wait for curators to come. Nobody was going to build on infrastructure from a team with a tarnished reputation and no track record on V2. This led to Euler running its own DAO-managed markets. External risk service providers were hired, but even with some external support, Labs ended up far more involved in the operational side than intended — Euler became the product, the risk manager, and the infrastructure provider simultaneously. I understand why it happened. But it created an identity crisis that we must now resolve.

Is Euler infrastructure, like Morpho? Then why is it running its own markets, competing with the curators it is trying to attract? Is Euler a product, like Aave? Aave also works with external risk providers — but that's their clear mandate, and Aave is unambiguously a product. For Euler, the outsourcing felt like a stopgap rather than a strategy. Is Euler a DEX? A stablecoin issuer? At various points, Euler was exploring all of these.

Users were confused about what Euler actually is. Curators were confused about what role they played versus the DAO. The team was confused about priorities. When you try to do everything, you end up doing nothing well.

Euler chased instead of leading

Rather than setting a clear direction and executing against it, Euler spent much of 2025 reacting. When a competitor announced something, we'd scramble to match it. When a new narrative took hold — points programs, the Ethena carry trade, whatever the meta of the month was — we'd try to jump on it, usually too late to matter. The energy was pointed outward, at what others were doing, rather than inward at what Euler should be building.

Chain launches became the default growth lever. We expanded to chain after chain through 2025 without a clear strategic purpose for many of them. Each launch created a significant load on the engineering team — integrations, testing, monitoring, support — and in most cases the result was the same: a spike of incentive-driven deposits followed by a decline when incentives ended or market conditions shifted. The charts tell this story plainly. 

This wasn't unique to Euler — incentive-driven growth is an industry-wide pattern. But it was compounded by a lack of selectivity. Euler said yes to too many opportunities because we didn't have a clear enough framework for saying no.

Underlying all of this was a mindset rooted in an earlier era of DeFi — a time when deploying a protocol was enough, when the on-chain world was small enough that users would find you and figure things out. The ethos of decentralization that shaped 2020-era thinking had hardened into assumptions: that if the smart contracts are public and well-designed, documentation, tooling, and UX polish are someone else's problem. That off-chain reliability is a luxury rather than a prerequisite. It's a worldview that made sense when DeFi was a frontier experiment. It doesn't hold when you're asking institutions and professional curators to build serious businesses on top of your platform.

The V2 launch itself proved this wrong — and the frustration when adoption didn't materialize organically was palpable. But instead of questioning the approach, we kept repeating the same pattern — with Euler Swap, with new chain launches, with feature after feature. Ship it fast, hope for adoption, move on to the next thing.

Euler neglected the infrastructure that actually matters

At the smart contract level, Euler is beautifully engineered. I stand by that.

At every other level, it was not.

The UI was slow, buggy, and unreliable. There was no stable backend to power it. There were no public APIs for external builders. Data availability was practically non-existent — curators managing millions of dollars on Euler had minimal tooling to do their jobs. The curator experience was, frankly, unacceptable for a protocol whose entire thesis depends on curators building on top of it.

For a protocol that wants to be infrastructure, this was a fatal gap. You cannot ask curators and institutions to build on top of a platform that doesn't offer reliable APIs, stable data, or basic operational tooling. The foundation wasn't there.

Euler Labs is a software development company. We have strong smart contract engineers and protocol designers. What we did not have — and what we desperately needed — were backend engineers, reliable infrastructure, and production-grade systems thinking. Labs was never built to run markets. Yet as the DAO's primary executor, the operational demands of managing DAO-directed markets fell disproportionately on Labs. This was not sustainable.

Euler attracted the wrong kind of growth

Not all TVL is equal. This is obvious in retrospect but it wasn't obvious enough at the time.

The depositor base was disproportionately mobile — capital attracted by incentives, without loyalty to the platform or understanding of the risks involved. When market conditions shifted or a more attractive opportunity appeared elsewhere, it moved. Fast.

The Plasma launch was the starkest illustration of this. Plasma became our largest chain deployment after Ethereum. It launched at a moment when significant liquidity was being freed from maturing Ethena PT positions, and it spent aggressively on incentives. Capital flowed in abundantly. Stream Finance borrowed much of it. Weeks later, Stream defaulted. The entire Plasma deployment was effectively wiped out — our second-largest chain, gone.

Euler didn't direct those incentives, and the Stream collapse was an industry-wide event that hit multiple protocols. But Euler was disproportionately exposed because our depositor base was already fragile. The capital that flowed to Plasma wasn't sticky — it was there for the incentives, and it ended up in the hands of a borrower that turned out to be toxic.

At the same time, Euler was spending significant resources servicing long-tail markets and niche deployments that didn't move the needle. Small markets, exotic assets, high maintenance cost. When they worked, nobody noticed. When they blew up, users came to Euler for answers — despite those markets being managed entirely by third-party curators. This is a direct symptom of the identity confusion: if nobody understands where Euler’s responsibility ends and a curator’s begins, Euler takes the reputational hit regardless. The risk-reward calculus was upside down.

The Hard Reset

In early 2026, both co-founders departed Euler Labs. I want to be clear about two things.

First, credit where it's due. Michael created Euler. The original vision for the protocol, the mathematical foundations of the liquidation engine, the ideas behind Euler Swap — these came from genuine intellectual depth. He led the team through the exploit and the recovery. Doug built the initial smart contract implementation for V1 and was the engineering counterpart who turned Michael's ideas into working code. Euler exists because of them.

Second, the patterns I described above — the identity crisis, the reactive strategy, the infrastructure neglect, the constant rush to ship — these accumulated over years, shaped by pace of growth and what was prioritized. 

This isn't unique to Euler. Crypto attracts builders who see the world differently — that's the source of the innovation. But many teams, including ours, lack deep experience growing companies at this pace, and the same energy that drives breakthrough products often comes with organizational blind spots.

The Stream crisis was a turning point — not the sole cause, but the moment that made it clear the existing approach required change. The co-founders stepped away in early 2026. The team that remained inherited both the organizational challenges and the opportunity to do things differently.  

Building a protocol through an exploit, a bear market, and a relaunch is genuinely hard, and reasonable people can disagree about the decisions that were made along the way. But I think it's important for the community to understand that Euler Labs is becoming a fundamentally different organization. The leadership transition is now being formalized. Different leadership, different priorities, different approach.

My own experience

I was promoted to CTO a year ago — not because I had all the answers, but because after more than three years at the company, I'd been pushing for change long before anyone asked me to. I knew about the challenges I was facing before taking the role. 

The first half of that year was difficult. Changing direction while an organization is still operating under its old assumptions is like trying to repair a train while it's moving — you can't stop it because there are passengers on board. It took time to build the internal support needed to make real changes — and then the Stream crisis consumed everything.

Looking back, I'm frustrated by how little changed in those early months. But I've learned from it, and the situation today is different. Not yet where I want it to be, but the direction is set, the clarity is there, and the work is underway.

Rebuilding the team

One of the hardest decisions we made was a significant organizational restructuring. From my perspective as CTO, the impact on the engineering side was the most visible — if it seemed from the outside like Euler went quiet in recent months, this is a large part of why. The team had to be reshaped before meaningful progress could resume. I want to be direct about the reasoning, because the people affected were good at what they did and they don't deserve to carry the stigma of a layoff.

Over years of operating under the conditions I've described — constant context-switching, shipping under pressure, unclear priorities, accumulating technical debt — the team developed patterns that were rational responses to a challenging environment. But those same patterns made it hard to change direction. The habits, expectations, and ways of working that had been reinforced over years couldn't be solved on a timeline that Euler's situation demanded. To build differently, Euler needed people who would start with new foundations rather than fight against ingrained ones.

The fault lies with the environment that shaped those patterns, not with the individuals.

Despite everything — the brand damage, the Stream crisis, the leadership transition, well-funded competitors gaining traction — Euler is still attracting serious talent. Our recent hires include a former CTO with over fifteen years of experience building compliance-grade backend infrastructure. A founding engineer from the startup ecosystem of one of the most respected database company founders in tech, with deep crypto-native product experience. A former Head of Brand at one of the largest exchanges in the space, with a background in TradFi Risk and a track record of leading teams through regulatory transitions, including FCA authorization. A COO who understands what it takes to build a tech startup, backed by years of consulting across startups and large enterprises, knowing both sides of the table when it comes to getting technology adopted at institutional level. 

Alongside these hires, we continue to recruit with the focus directed towards business development hires with deep institutional backgrounds and track records of successful large-scale integrations. 

These are not hype hires. They are infrastructure, discipline and growth hires. Backend systems. Production reliability. Clear communication. Institutional relationships. The kind of people you bring in when you're serious about building something that lasts, not when you're trying to generate a narrative.

What Euler Becomes

Infrastructure. Period.

Euler is lending infrastructure. That is the identity, and everything else follows from it.

This doesn't mean abandoning the application layer — curators still need distribution, and users still need a place to discover and interact with markets. We're rebuilding the Euler app, and we intend it to be excellent. But the app's role changes. It becomes a distribution layer for curator-managed products, not the product itself. The protocol is the rail network. Curators operate the services that run on it.

This is the direction the industry is heading. Sentora, currently the largest curator on Euler, has written publicly about the evolution of vault management — from static human curation toward intelligent, automated systems that operate at block speed, with the lending protocol as foundational infrastructure underneath. Steakhouse Financial already operates its own dedicated app for its vaults and has B2B integrations with major exchanges. KPK is going in a similar direction. We believe they're right. The most serious curators in the space will increasingly build dedicated frontends and distribution channels on top of lending infrastructure, rather than relying only on protocol-level UIs to represent their products.

The concentration of capital in DeFi lending reinforces this. Most of the meaningful volume flows through a handful of curated products. Servicing the long tail — niche markets, exotic assets, one-off deployments — consumes disproportionate resources and carries disproportionate reputation risk. We've learned this the hard way. Focus matters.

What's happening now

We've already begun making changes.

We're replacing the current application with a lighter, more reliable alternative. The new app is being audited and pen-tested before going live. This is a decision I want to explain honestly. Anyone who has used the Euler app understands the UI frustrations. I want to explain how Euler ended up here, and why we did not replace it earlier. 

Our main application — the monorepo that's been the primary Euler interface — depends heavily on a backend that has been a persistent source of instability. Every new feature requires changes across multiple systems. Every chain launch is a multi-day integration effort. Even adding a new vault to the app — something that should be trivial for a permissionless protocol — had become a manual, high-effort process involving multiple teams. The engineering team spends more time maintaining this complexity than building anything new.

The lighter app temporarily strips nearly all backend dependencies. It needs only a token list and price feeds to operate at full capacity — and remains functional even without them. It has full feature parity with the current app and, frankly, is more stable and faster. Any new feature or integration can be added in hours rather than days. And critically, it lets us retire both the old backend and the old application the moment the new backend is ready, without a disruptive migration.

This frees the team to focus entirely on what matters: building the new backend, the SDK, and rebuilding the application from the ground up. Without this decision, we'd be stuck indefinitely — maintaining an unreliable legacy system while trying to build its replacement, slowed down by both.

We're launching reliable, documented APIs. These will be the backbone of the entire system — designed for the curators, integrators, and institutions that need to build on top of Euler. This has been the single biggest gap in our offering, and it's being addressed by someone with fifteen years of experience building exactly this kind of infrastructure.

The ground-up application rebuild is already underway. The new backend and SDK are shipping in the upcoming weeks. The new application will follow — built on top of these foundations, in the right order this time. Meanwhile, the lite app serves users reliably today and will continue to improve in parallel. The new app will be simpler, faster, and designed around the curator model: clear attribution of who manages each market, progressive disclosure of risk information, and unified support for both managed and immutable vaults. 

We're exploring AI-powered contextual information to help users understand what they're actually exposed to when they deposit — plain-language explanations of vault structure, collateral quality, and market conditions, alongside risk assessments from specialized third parties. Beyond the app, we're building the ecosystem tools that should have existed from day one: a curator dashboard that unifies vault creation, management, and monitoring, and open-source, deployment-ready liquidation bots that any operator can run.

Fees and sustainability

I want to be transparent about where we stand on protocol economics.

Euler Labs has sufficient runway to sustain development through this transition, and we are actively working to strengthen our position further.

With that foundation in place, Labs will be recommending that the DAO reduce protocol fees to zero for the foreseeable future. 

At Euler's current scale, protocol fees generate modest revenue while creating a meaningful cost disadvantage relative to competing infrastructure. We're receiving consistent feedback from curators that fees are a barrier to deeper engagement with Euler. 

The broader reality is that Euler’s main competitor generates zero protocol revenue. They have no fee switch enabled. They are entirely focused on growth, subsidized by a well-capitalized treasury and strong investor backing. If Euler is going to compete for curator adoption at the infrastructure layer, it cannot do so while imposing costs that others don't. Charging for infrastructure that hasn't yet achieved critical adoption is self-defeating. Growth must come before monetization — this is true of every platform business, and lending infrastructure is no different. 

As part of this transition, Fee Flow — Euler's fee auction mechanism — will be paused accordingly. It is an innovative design, and it remains available to be reactivated alongside fees when the protocol reaches the scale that justifies it. In the meantime, the priority is building the adoption that creates sustainable revenue, not extracting it prematurely.

This connects to a protocol upgrade that we'll be proposing in the coming weeks. The fees can be lowered immediately through existing governance mechanisms. But there's a structural gap: the DAO currently has no way to enforce a minimum fee on existing vaults after it's been lowered. The upgrade addresses this — giving the DAO the tools to reintroduce fees in the future when scale justifies it. This isn't a permanent giveaway. It's a growth decision with a built-in reversal mechanism.

The community deserves advance notice and a thorough discussion before any upgrade moves forward. It's a small, scoped change. But it does break our standing commitment to no protocol upgrades outside of critical vulnerabilities, and we take that seriously — which is why we’re giving advance notice here. 

Why Managed Markets Matter

I want to address something that doesn't get discussed honestly enough in DeFi lending.

There is an increasingly popular narrative that immutability is inherently safer — that ungoverned, fixed-parameter markets eliminate governance risk and are therefore superior. On the happy path, this is true. When everything works as expected, immutable markets are elegant. No one can change the rules. No governance attack surface. Clean and predictable.

But DeFi doesn't always stay on the happy path. And when it doesn't, immutability becomes a trap.

We've now seen this play out twice in a matter of months. When Stream Finance collapsed in late 2025, and again when the Resolv exploit hit in March 2026, the same pattern emerged. Collateral assets lost their value. Oracles continued reporting stale prices. Borrowers withdrew real assets against worthless collateral. And in the immutable markets at the base layer — the markets nobody governs, nobody curates, nobody is responsible for — there was no mechanism to respond. No one to pause borrowing. No one to adjust LTV parameters. No one to update oracle configurations. The markets simply sit there, accumulating bad debt that no one can resolve.

What happened next is worth examining carefully. Curators with sophisticated monitoring and automation detected the problem early and withdrew their depositors' capital from the affected base-layer markets before liquidity dried up. They protected their own users. They are rightly credited for this.

But the mechanics of what actually occurred deserve scrutiny. When one curator withdraws liquidity from a shared base-layer market — whether through faster automation, better monitoring, or earlier access to information — that liquidity is no longer available for anyone else. The remaining depositors — those using other curators with fewer resources, or retail users interacting directly — are left in markets with depleted liquidity and no path to recovery. The curator who moves first wins. Everyone else holds the bag.

This is not risk management. This is a bank run with bots. Traditional finance has its own versions of this pressure, but it also has a toolkit designed to slow it down — trading halts, redemption gates, regulatory intervention. These mechanisms exist precisely because unrestricted race-to-the-exit dynamics are recognized as destructive. DeFi has no equivalent. On-chain, the race runs at block speed with no one to call a timeout.

This is a problem the industry hasn't solved yet. As infrastructure providers, Euler gives curators the flexibility to set parameters as they see fit — it's not our place to govern their decisions. But we do believe users should be able to assess their risk transparently, and that's something we're actively working on.

I am not arguing that governance eliminates risk — it obviously doesn't. Governance done poorly introduces its own dangers. A curator who misconfigures parameters or fails to respond in time can make things worse. The Elixir near-miss on Euler's own DAO markets is proof that governed markets are only as good as the people governing them.

But the alternative — markets where no one can respond, where bad debt accumulates with no resolution mechanism, where the only crisis strategy is "withdraw before everyone else" — is not a stable foundation for an industry that wants institutional adoption.

Euler's architecture supports both models. Immutable markets exist on Euler for users who want predictable, fixed-parameter lending with no governance surface. Managed markets exist for curators who take responsibility for active risk management — adjusting LTVs, pausing markets, modifying oracle configurations when conditions demand it. When a crisis hits a managed market, a capable curator can intervene: pause borrowing to stop the bleeding, adjust parameters to reflect new realities, and work toward fair resolution for all depositors.

This flexibility is, I believe, one of Euler's most important structural advantages. The industry will need both models. But the idea that immutability alone equals safety deserves honest challenge, and recent events have made the case more clearly than any argument could.

DAO Markets

In light of everything I've outlined, Euler Labs will be recommending that the DAO sunset its directly managed markets and vaults. This is a natural consequence of Euler finding its identity as infrastructure. Labs should not be in the business of running markets, and the DAO's governance structure is not well suited to the operational demands of active market management.

More broadly, the model of outsourcing risk curation to service providers who operate across multiple protocols creates inherent tensions that we've experienced firsthand. When a risk service provider also operates its own competing vaults on other platforms — vaults that are in direct competition with the very markets they're managing for your DAO — the question of alignment is unavoidable. 

When service providers wait for instructions rather than drive strategy, and when there are no KPIs tying their compensation to the protocol's growth, the relationship becomes transactional rather than strategic. This is a structural problem, not a reflection on any individual firm, and it reinforces why Labs believes the DAO should step back from direct market management entirely.

This will require a formal DAO vote, and we'll put forward a detailed proposal in the coming days. At the same time, we are working with select curators to ensure a smooth transition and continued protocol growth. 

What Else Is Ahead

A few additional items on the roadmap that deserve mention:

EulerEarn redeployment. EulerEarn — Euler’s yield aggregation vault, originally forked from MetaMorpho — has revealed several issues in operation, including the lack of loss socialization mechanisms and insufficient tools for curators to manage withdrawal runs. We'll be working on redeploying an updated version that addresses these shortcomings and gives curators the controls they need to manage their products responsibly.

Chain deprecations. Chains that aren't generating meaningful activity will be deprecated from our official application. This is a direct application of the focus principle — every chain we maintain is engineering bandwidth not spent on the core platform. That said, Euler's smart contracts remain deployed and functional, and our lite app is open source. Any chain ecosystem, project, or team that wants to run a frontend on top of Euler's infrastructure is welcome to do so — this is exactly the model we want to encourage. Euler benefits from the network effects regardless of who operates the interface.

Future products. The ideas behind fixed-term and fixed-rate lending, and a more mature version of Euler Swap, haven't been abandoned. They remain some of the most innovative concepts in the protocol's roadmap. But they'll return only when the foundations are solid enough to support them — reliable infrastructure, sufficient liquidity, and a mature curator ecosystem. We won't repeat the mistake of launching products on top of infrastructure that isn't ready.

Looking Forward

This post has been uncomfortable to write. Admitting that an organization you care about got important things wrong — and that you were part of it, even if you were fighting to change it — is not easy. But the people who stuck with Euler through all of this deserve a direct account of where we are, not a polished narrative.

The protocol is sound. The architecture works. The smart contracts survived real stress tests. What failed was the organization, the strategy, and the infrastructure around those contracts. All of that is changing. We believe that getting the foundations right creates a future where Euler is not only the best lending infrastructure in DeFi, but has a strong and sustainable business built on top of it.

Euler has a clear identity now: lending infrastructure. We have the right team to build it. We have a plan that starts with the foundations — backend, APIs, SDK — and builds upward from there. We're making hard decisions about what to stop doing so we can focus on what matters.

Part of this reset is communication. The industry often doesn't understand what Euler is or does. We take responsibility for that, and we're looking forward to sharing more as we move forward.

Throughout it all, Euler has delivered genuine innovation. That innovation is not something that happened as a moment in time; Euler V2 remains the most flexible vault infrastructure able to facilitate lending markets of any structure with deep parameter control for professional risk curators to build and manage mature lending markets. 

Euler has been through more adversity than most protocols survive. That we are still here is a credit to the resilience of everyone who has built Euler – past and present. I believe that what's left after all of it — the technology, the future it enables, the community, and the people still here building — is worth fighting for. What happens next will be measured by what we deliver.

— Kasper, CTO, Euler Labs