Omnity Shuts Down Bitcoin DeFi Due to Exhausted Funds

Omnity Network announced that it has exhausted its operating funds and will gradually cease projects, with its Bitcoin DeFi products RichSwap and Satsman set to close within the next 30 days, and liquidity providers for RichSwap are urged to withdraw as soon as possible.

The team stated that they will upgrade the smart contracts and lift existing lock-up restrictions, allowing users to withdraw without limitations, but specific timelines and withdrawal guidelines have not yet been announced, only that they will be released soon. Support channels during the transition period will be maintained for 30 days.

About a month ago, the same team shut down the cross-chain bridge Omnity Hub. The bridge operated for approximately 27 months, connecting Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, ICP, and multiple Bitcoin Layer 2s, with the official claim of peak cross-chain asset scale nearing $1 billion. The reason for the shutdown was that bridge fee income could not cover security and operational costs, and there was an increasing risk of cross-chain bridge attacks.

RichSwap was marketed as a rune AMM based on REE, settling on Bitcoin, with no custody, no wrapping, and completing exchanges in about 5 seconds using PSBT; Satsman was used for fair launches and permanently locked liquidity on RichSwap. The infrastructure relies on the execution layer on Internet Computer, emphasizing Turing completeness and avoiding traditional cross-chain wrapping.

The announcement did not mention hackers or regulatory penalties, attributing the situation solely to cash exhaustion. Core members stated they would continue to stay in the Bitcoin ecosystem through personal and developer collaborations, without committing to inheriting products or compensating for opportunity costs during the lock-up period.

In market mechanics, liquidity in the rune pool and launchpad is sold, while on-chain assets that can be immediately exited are bought. Funds flow from LP positions to withdrawal queues; beneficiaries are those who complete exits before contract upgrades, while those under pressure are still trapped by lock-up terms or those treating permanent lock-up as a launch credibility. The driving event comes from the operational account hitting bottom, rather than theft on-chain.

Source: Public Information