Postmortem2021 ~ 2024

OHM forks

Most forks collapsed within a year of their 2021 launch.

Sample
7 majors
Survival rate
2 / 7
Average drawdown
~ -98%
Price normalized

Monthly price curve from launch

Each token's peak price is normalized to 100, with monthly closes from launch plotted as percent of peak. X-axis is months from launch, Y-axis is percent of peak. The diamond marks each token's peak, and time to peak differs per token.

scale
0.1%1%10%100%0m3m6m9m12m18m24m30m36mBTRFLYOHMTIMEKLIMAHECSBFHM% of peakpeak

Monthly closes are approximations based on CoinGecko and CMC public data, and may differ from intraday prices.

Timeline

From launch to ending

Most forks broke in Q1 2022, less than a year after launching in 2021. The few survivors are pivots more than mechanism wins.

OHMEthereum
Alive
TIMEAvalanche
Rugged
KLIMAPolygon
Moribund
HECFantom
Wound-down
BTRFLYEthereum
Alive, Pivoted
SBAvalanche
Abandoned
FHMFantom
Abandoned
2021202220232024 onward
PeakAliveAlive, PivotedMoribundWound-downAbandonedRugged
Project files

Per-project case files

Click headers to sort. Click a row to open the normalized curve and detail.

TickerChainStatusLaunchto PeakPeakRecentvs Launchvs Peak
OHMOlympusDAO
EthereumAlive2021-0330d$1,330$19+375.0%-98.6%
Normalized price curve
0%25%50%75%100%0dpeak 30d+30d+90d+180d+1y+2yrecentpeak 30d
Launch
$4
2021-03
Peak
$1,330
2021-04, 30d
Recent
$19
Alive
Hook

The original protocol that created the bond, (3,3) staking, and DAO treasury paradigm.

Why it grew

High-APY rebase, DAO treasury, and (3,3) Schelling combined to push the treasury past $4B in six months. Became the symbol of DeFi Summer 2.

Why it broke

(3,3) rested on the assumption that everyone stakes. A single sell triggered accelerated dilution, the death spiral started, and price went from 100× RFV down to near RFV, dropping 98%.

Ending

The protocol survived. Transitioned to V2 and gOHM, the treasury still holds value, and the token price stabilized near RFV.

Backing eventually held at RFV. The mechanism itself worked, the market price simply started at an irrational level.

Note

Alive cohort is down -98.6% from peak but +375.0% versus launch. The average user entry sits somewhere between the two.

Common failure modes

Seven common failure patterns

Each fork broke for slightly different reasons, but almost all hit two or three of these seven at the same time.

P1

(3,3) game-theory ponzi shape

The Schelling point is that if everyone stakes, everyone wins. One large sell triggers accelerated dilution, which itself becomes the next sell trigger, starting the death spiral.

Real cases
OHM down ~98%TIME down ~99%SB down ~99%
P2

Price runs detached from backing

Market starts 50 to 100× above backing and goes straight to near-backing. Backing held, but the average user entry sat far higher, so users still ended up with 99% losses.

Real cases
OHM peak $1,330 vs RFV ~$50TIME peak $10,000
P3

Unbounded rebase inflation

Sustaining 7,000%+ APY requires runaway issuance. The moment price stops keeping up with inflation, real return turns negative.

Real cases
In most OHM forks, every stake flipped into sell pressure once Schelling broke
P4

One token doubles as asset and governance

OHM was both treasury asset and governance token. If trust collapses, both go to zero, and the incentive to use governance to protect the asset disappears as well.

Real cases
OHM, TIME, and HEC all bundled both into a single token
P5

Volatile backing assets

When backing assets like ETH, AVAX, MATIC, or carbon credits crash with the market cycle, backing itself collapses and stops acting as a floor.

Real cases
KLIMA's carbon credit liquidity gapHEC dropped together with the FTM cycle
P6

Inverse bonds came too late

OHM only introduced the buy-and-burn-below-backing mechanism manually, late in the cycle. With no automatic, real-time operation, it could not stop the price runup.

Real cases
OHM introduced inverse bonds in 2022, after price had already fallen 90%
P7

People risk

Identity reveals of anonymous operators, key-person departures, and concentration of authority. The mechanism can work fine, but if trust in operations breaks, it is over.

Real cases
TIME's 0xSifu = M.PatrynAnonymous team issues across many forks
What Blackhaven does differently

What Blackhaven does differently from these failures

Every item below is a real mechanism documented on docs.blackhaven.xyz. Not marketing, but design implemented in contracts and the TOS.

  • Blocks P1, P3
    Lock distribution cap (set by governance, first-come-first-served)
    No rebase-style unbounded issuance. Distribution stays inside a cap set by governance, and new locks pause once it is hit. The infinite dilution that fuels the death spiral is blocked.
  • Blocks P2, P6
    BAM: automatic, two-sided, deviation-proportional, with cooldown
    Extends OHM's manual inverse bond into an automatic, two-sided version. When price runs above NAV, it immediately sells back to treasury; when it falls below, it buys and burns. Absorbs the runup before it starts.
  • Blocks P5
    USDm stablecoin as the single backing asset
    Backing is a USDm stablecoin, not a volatile asset. Avoids the death spiral where backing collapses together with an ETH or AVAX cycle.
  • Reinforces P1, P2
    90% of bond capital to treasury, 10% to ops, hardcoded
    Blocks the pattern where OHM forks tapped the treasury at will under the banner of DAO ops funding. During bootstrap, the split is explicitly 100% to POL and ops.
  • Reinforces P2
    No redemption right stated in the TOS
    Stops users from expecting direct RFV redemption. Removes upfront the OHM-fork illusion that backing equals redemption price.
  • Reinforces P7
    Zellic audit and time-locked admin
    Operator authority is time-locked and the audit is public. Shrinks the channels through which anonymous operators can make unilateral decisions.
Bottom line

OHM's mechanism itself defended user capital down to backing. What broke was not the mechanism but the game-theory shell, runaway inflation, the asset-and-governance combo, and people risk. Blackhaven strips those shells one by one and keeps only the core (treasury, bonds, POL), structurally reducing the incentive to enter far above backing.

Next page
So what should you actually play on Blackhaven?
Goes to the main plays per horizon (early, near-term, mid), capital allocation, and the action sequence.
->