POAP’s Exit Puts a Spotlight on Web3 Shutdown Risk and Why Users Need an Exit Plan

A commentary published by Foresight and written by imToken argues that crypto has entered a period in which project shutdowns need to be discussed as seriously as launches. The piece points to closures or wind-downs across trading venues, DeFi, wallets, NFTs, and infrastructure, citing BitMEX, Satori Finance, Botanix, and POAP as examples of projects that reached an endpoint for very different reasons. Its central argument is that a product can have funding, users, uptime, brand recognition, and even sound technology, yet still fail to build a business model that covers long-term operating costs. The article says that reality has direct implications for ordinary users. Holding assets in a self-custodial wallet solves account control, but not necessarily redeemability or exitability. It contrasts native assets such as ETH with deposit receipts, LP tokens, wrapped assets, and bridged representations like renBTC, where the token in a wallet may only be a claim on something else. Using dYdX v3, Ren Protocol, and network-level shutdown examples, the piece breaks asset control into three layers: control of keys, claim on the underlying asset, and the practical ability to exit when a protocol or network is no longer maintained. Its conclusion is straightforward: users should not tie their ultimate control over assets to the assumption that any one project will operate forever.