Berachain One Year Later: From $3.35B Peak TVL to 88% Collapse - Did Proof of Liquidity Deliver?
Berachain launched in February 2025 with unprecedented hype. Pre-deposit campaigns attracted $3.1 billion before mainnet went live. The chain's native Proof of Liquidity (PoL) mechanism promised to solve DeFi's liquidity fragmentation problem. Meme culture and serious technology seemed perfectly aligned.
Twelve months later, the numbers tell a sobering story. TVL peaked at $3.35 billion and has since collapsed to approximately $393 million - an 88% decline. The BERA token crashed over 90% from its $2.70 high. And controversy around investor refund clauses has raised questions about who really benefits from this "community-first" chain.
Was Berachain a failed experiment, or is the underlying innovation still sound? Let's examine the evidence.
The Promise: Proof of Liquidity Explained
Berachain's core innovation was Proof of Liquidity (PoL), a consensus mechanism that ties network security to DeFi participation. Unlike Proof of Stake where tokens sit idle in validator contracts, PoL requires liquidity to be actively deployed in the ecosystem.
The Three-Token Model:
- BERA: The gas token used to pay transaction fees. Inflationary by design.
- BGT (Bera Governance Token): Non-transferable governance token earned by providing liquidity. The only way to direct validator emissions.
- HONEY: Native stablecoin backed by USDC, central to the DeFi ecosystem.
The theory was elegant. Validators need BGT delegations to earn rewards. Users earn BGT by providing liquidity to approved "reward vaults." Protocols compete for BGT emissions by offering the best yields. This creates a flywheel where liquidity provision directly strengthens network security.
How It Works in Practice:
- Users deposit assets into liquidity pools (e.g., BERA-HONEY on Kodiak)
- LP tokens go into "reward vaults" to earn BGT
- Users delegate BGT to validators
- Validators with more BGT delegations earn more block rewards
- Protocols can "bribe" BGT holders to direct emissions to their pools
The system essentially gamifies liquidity provision, turning passive yield farming into active governance participation.
The Reality: What the Numbers Show
TVL Trajectory:
| Date | TVL | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-launch | $3.1B | Boyco pre-deposit campaigns |
| February 2025 | $3.35B | Peak TVL shortly after mainnet |
| Q2 2025 | ~$1.5B | Gradual decline begins |
| January 2026 | $393M-$646M | Current range depending on source |
The 88% TVL collapse raises immediate questions. Was the pre-deposit liquidity mercenary capital that left once incentives dried up? Did the PoL mechanism fail to create sustainable liquidity?
BERA Token Performance:
- Launch price: ~$2.70 (intraday high)
- Current price: ~$0.25-0.30
- Decline: Over 90%
The token crash was amplified by Berachain's design choice to make BERA inflationary. Unlike deflationary tokens that benefit holders during bear markets, BERA's continuous emission creates constant sell pressure.
DeFi Ecosystem Metrics:
Despite the TVL collapse, the ecosystem shows signs of genuine activity:
- Infrared Finance: $1.52 billion in peak TVL, leading liquid staking derivative provider
- Kodiak: $1.12 billion peak TVL, primary DEX for BERA trading pairs
- Concrete: ~$800 million TVL, yield aggregation platform
- BEX (Berachain DEX): Native exchange with concentrated liquidity features
These protocols collectively processed billions in volume. The question is whether current activity levels are sustainable without artificial incentives.
The Controversies
The Brevan Howard Refund Clause:
Perhaps no controversy damaged Berachain's community perception more than the revelation about investor protections. Brevan Howard Digital, which invested $25 million, reportedly negotiated a refund clause allowing them to recover their investment if BERA dropped below certain thresholds.
Critics pointed out the asymmetry: institutional investors got downside protection while retail users absorbed the full risk. The "community-first" narrative felt hollow when insiders had safety nets unavailable to regular participants.
Airdrop Distribution:
The BERA airdrop allocated only 3-5% of supply to testnet participants who had supported the project for years. Complaints about "low effort allocation" spread across social media. Users who spent months testing the network felt shortchanged compared to investors who simply wrote checks.
The Balancer Exploit:
In March 2025, a $12.8 million exploit hit Balancer-based pools on Berachain. While not a flaw in PoL itself, the security incident undermined confidence in the nascent ecosystem. Funds were eventually frozen and partially recovered, but the damage to reputation was done.
What's Actually Working
Despite the problems, Berachain introduced innovations worth acknowledging:
Genuine DeFi Composability:
The PoL system created deep integrations between protocols. Infrared's liquid staking derivatives (iBGT, iBERA) plug directly into Kodiak's liquidity pools, which feed into Concrete's yield strategies. This composability is more sophisticated than typical chain architectures.
Active Governance:
BGT delegation isn't theoretical - protocols actively compete for emissions. The bribing market creates transparent price discovery for liquidity direction. Users know exactly what their governance participation is worth.
Novel Economic Experiments:
Berachain effectively created a "liquidity layer" that other chains lack. The data from this experiment - what works, what fails - has value regardless of price performance.
Developer Activity:
The ecosystem attracted legitimate builders. Projects like Infrared Finance developed sophisticated liquid staking mechanisms. Kodiak built concentrated liquidity features competitive with Uniswap V3. This technical foundation isn't erased by price declines.
The Bear Case
Critics make several compelling arguments:
Mercenary Capital Problem Unsolved:
PoL was supposed to create "sticky" liquidity by tying it to governance. In practice, capital still left when yields dropped. The mechanism added complexity without fundamentally changing incentive alignment.
Token Design Failures:
Making BERA inflationary while BGT is non-transferable created structural sell pressure. Users earning BGT often sold their BERA emissions immediately, accelerating the price decline.
Complexity Barrier:
The three-token system confused newcomers. Understanding BERA vs. BGT vs. HONEY required significant education. Many users simply provided liquidity without understanding the governance implications.
Sustainability Questions:
With incentives exhausted and TVL collapsed, can Berachain attract organic activity? The chain must prove it offers something beyond yield farming opportunities available elsewhere.
Comparison: Berachain vs. Traditional L1s
| Metric | Berachain | Arbitrum | Solana | Avalanche |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | PoL | PoS (Ethereum) | PoS + PoH | PoS |
| Peak TVL | $3.35B | $3.2B | $8B+ | $2.5B |
| Current TVL | ~$400M | ~$2.5B | ~$5B | ~$1B |
| Native Stablecoin | HONEY | None | None | None |
| Liquidity Incentive | Built into consensus | External | External | External |
Berachain's PoL is genuinely novel, but the results suggest the innovation hasn't translated into sustainable competitive advantage.
What Happens Next
Berachain faces a critical juncture. The project can either:
Scenario 1: Rebuild Around Core Users
Focus on the protocols and users who stayed through the collapse. Infrared, Kodiak, and Concrete have proven commitment. Building from a smaller but more genuine base could create sustainable growth.
Scenario 2: Pivot PoL Mechanism
Adjust the tokenomics to reduce sell pressure. Possible changes include making BGT partially transferable, reducing BERA inflation, or adding burn mechanisms.
Scenario 3: Ecosystem Stagnation
Without new catalysts, Berachain becomes another ghost chain with interesting technology but no adoption. The meme culture that drove initial interest won't sustain long-term development.
Key Metrics to Watch:
- Organic TVL growth: Is capital coming without artificial incentives?
- Developer retention: Are teams still building on Berachain?
- BGT accumulation: Are users engaging with governance or just farming and dumping?
- HONEY adoption: Is the native stablecoin gaining real utility?
Lessons for the Industry
Berachain's year-one results offer broader lessons:
1. Pre-deposit campaigns create artificial baselines
$3.1 billion in pre-launch liquidity looked impressive but set unrealistic expectations. Chains should be measured by post-incentive activity, not peak mercenary capital.
2. Novel consensus mechanisms need time
Proof of Liquidity represents genuine innovation. Dismissing it based on one year of volatile markets may be premature. The mechanism needs multiple market cycles to prove its thesis.
3. Tokenomics matter as much as technology
PoL's technical design may be sound, but the inflationary BERA token undermined price performance. Economic design deserves equal attention to consensus mechanisms.
4. Community trust is fragile
The Brevan Howard refund clause and airdrop controversies damaged trust that technology can't rebuild. Transparency about investor terms should be standard practice.
Conclusion
Berachain's first year delivered both innovation and disappointment. Proof of Liquidity represents a genuine attempt to solve DeFi's liquidity fragmentation. The three-token model created deep protocol composability. Developers built sophisticated applications.
But the numbers don't lie. An 88% TVL collapse and 90% token crash indicate something went wrong. Whether the failure lies in market conditions, tokenomics, or the PoL mechanism itself remains debatable.
The technology isn't dead - Infrared Finance still processes significant volume, and the governance system functions as designed. But Berachain must prove it can attract organic activity without the artificial boost of launch incentives.
One year is too short to declare final judgment on a novel consensus mechanism. But it's long enough to acknowledge that the initial execution fell short of the promise. The next twelve months will determine whether Berachain becomes a cautionary tale or a comeback story.
BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade RPC infrastructure across 25+ blockchain networks, enabling developers to build applications on established and emerging chains. As the L1 landscape evolves, reliable node access remains essential for production applications. Explore our API marketplace for multi-chain development infrastructure.