When a rollup goes dark: the Polygon zkEVM shutdown explained

Jul 3, 2026

Czas czytania: 10 minut

Podsumuj za pomocą sztucznej inteligencji

Polygon zkEVM has officially entered its sunset phase. On July 1, 2026, Polygon Labs switched off the Polygon zkEVM Mainnet Beta sequencer, with wallet balances moving to Ethereum L1 through a claim process. To be fair, the shutdown has been handled neatly: users had a full year to prepare, the bridge stayed open until the last day, and claims remain available until the end of 2027.

The catch is that blockchains don’t just hold coins in wallets. By the time a network winds down, some liquidity is already buried several layers deep: in pools, vaults, lending markets, collateral positions, and other contracts Polygon does not control. Moving that back to L1 is no longer a simple bridge job.

So we asked our expert, Andrew Nalichaev, the questions many in the space are likely asking now: who is responsible for stuck liquidity, what happens to stablecoins on a dying network, and what should other rollups learn before they face the same problem?

Andrew Nalichaev

Ekspert Blockchain i analityk DeFi

Andrew przekłada zdecentralizowane koncepcje na bezpieczne, funkcjonalne narzędzia finansowe. Porusza się po niestabilnym krajobrazie DeFi, aby budować skalowalne infrastruktury blockchain, które odnoszą się do rzeczywistej użyteczności, wykraczając poza modne hasła, aby zapewnić wartość techniczną.

Wyświetl profil

- If we look at Polygon zkEVM as a case study in shutting down an L2 network, what was handled well, and what should have been designed for from day one?

The best thing Polygon did here was give people time and a clear process. The zkEVM sunset was announced about a year in advance, the bridge stayed open right up to the final day, there was a balance snapshot, and users were given a way to claim funds on Ethereum L1. As far as shutdowns go, that is a pretty tidy way to handle it.

The part that should have been baked in from day one is the DeFi exit plan. Moving wallet balances is one thing, because those balances map neatly to assets sitting in bridge escrow. DeFi is a different beast. LP tokens, vault shares, collateral positions, and debt claims all need their own emergency exit routes at the protocol level. Without that, once the sequencer stops, liquidity sitting inside third-party contracts can become very hard, or sometimes impossible, to reach.

- How realistic is it to shut down an L2 network “cleanly” once it already has DeFi protocols, LP positions, vaults, collateral, and derivative tokens on top of it?

A clean shutdown is possible, but only up to a point. If we are talking about simple wallet balances or assets that map directly to bridge escrow, then yes, you can make the process fairly neat. The moment DeFi composability gets involved, things become much harder.

Take a basic AMM pool. In theory, you could look at who holds the LP tokens, work out their share of the pool, and distribute the underlying assets. It has to be the current holder, not whoever deposited originally, otherwise, you risk paying the same person twice. But real DeFi rarely stays that clean. LP tokens can be put into vaults, staked, used as collateral, or wrapped into yet another product. Suddenly, you are not dealing with a single claim but a whole chain of them, and there’s no universal way to see who the “real” owner is across every possible contract.

So the honest answer is: an L2 can only shut down cleanly if the protocols on top of it planned for that scenario from the start. Otherwise, the network-level shutdown may look organised, but the DeFi layer can still be a mess.

- How would you assess the double-spend risk when trying to manually unwind DeFi positions after a network shutdown? Is it mainly a technical, legal, or economic problem?

It is a mix of all three, but at the heart of it, this is an economic problem.

The bridge escrow on L1 only holds the actual assets that were brought into the system. DeFi then builds extra layers on top of that: LP tokens, vault shares, lending positions, debt tokens, and other claims. In a lending market, for example, you can quickly end up with more claims than there are assets sitting in escrow, at least if you try to make everyone whole at the same time.

That’s where the double-spend problem kicks in. You can’t pay the depositor, the borrower, and every derivative holder from the same pool of underlying assets if that pool isn’t big enough to cover all those claims.

There’s also a timing trap. Some positions don’t even have a settled value at the moment you freeze them: an underwater loan needs a liquidation, interest needs to accrue, an oracle needs to update. Stop the chain mid-flight and the “fair” share of those positions becomes undefined, not merely hard to calculate.

Technically, you can try to untangle who owns what. Legally, you may need to decide whose claim comes first. But economically, the limit is very simple: you can’t distribute more assets than actually exist.

- Should L2 teams require protocols to have an escape hatch before allowing them to deploy liquidity on the network?

Yes, especially if a protocol is going to hold people’s money. You can’t welcome deposits, build liquidity, and then only start asking “how do we get everyone out?” when the network is already being switched off.

The L2 itself can only help with the clean, simple part: balances that match what’s sitting in the bridge escrow. It can’t realistically go into every DeFi protocol and untangle the books. At that point, the L2 team would be making calls on who owns what, how positions should be valued, and who gets paid first. That’s a lot of responsibility, and it’s not really their job.

So yes, DeFi protocols need their own emergency withdrawal routes, settlement logic, or shutdown plans before users start putting serious liquidity into them.

- How does a sequencer shutdown change the trust model for L2s? Should users now assess not only bridge risk, but also shutdown risk?

This is where the whole “just bridge out” idea starts to break down. It works if your funds are sitting plainly in a wallet. It doesn’t work so neatly if they’re tied up in a lending market, an LP position, a vault, or a contract that still needs one more transaction to let you out.

When the sequencer stops, the chain stops taking instructions. You might still have a valid claim somewhere, but you may no longer have a working path to act on it. That’s the uncomfortable part: the asset may not be gone, but the route to reach it can disappear.

Users need to look beyond bridge safety. For smaller L2s, especially those with thin liquidity or experimental ecosystems, the question should also be: what happens if this network winds down, and can I actually get out before it does?

- What happens to stablecoin reserves on a dying network, especially when comparing bridged USDC.e with native issuance through a CCTP-like model?

With bridged stablecoins like USDC.e, the real USDC is sitting in escrow on Ethereum L1. If your USDC.e is just sitting in your wallet, it can be migrated or claimed. If it’s stuck inside a contract that no one can interact with anymore, the underlying USDC is still there, but the user has no practical way to get to it. The issuer doesn’t get any “extra” money from this. The backing is still there, but the value is basically trapped.

Native stablecoins work differently. In a CCTP-style setup, the token is minted directly on the L2, and the fiat reserve sits with the issuer. To exit cleanly, you need to burn the token on the L2 before the shutdown and mint it somewhere else. If the token is stuck in a dead contract, you can’t burn it on-chain anymore. So the issuer is left holding real reserves for tokens that still exist, but on a network that no longer works.

At that point, the issuer has to decide what to do next: keep the reserves, accept off-chain claims with proof, or eventually treat those tokens as abandoned.

Don’t let infrastructure risk become a product risk

Innowise helps design Web3 infrastructure with fewer blind spots

- What lessons should teams building new rollup ecosystems take from the Polygon zkEVM shutdown?

Polygon zkEVM is a reminder that every rollup needs two roadmaps: one for growth, and one for winding down safely. Bringing liquidity in is only half the job. Teams also need a clear way to get that liquidity out if the network ever winds down.

That means warning users early, keeping the bridge open for as long as possible, giving people a clean claim process for wallet balances, and speaking to DeFi protocols long before the shutdown date. It also means spelling out what happens to bridged assets, native assets, and stablecoins.

Above all, teams should stop treating TVL as something that can simply be packed up and moved later. Once the sequencer goes quiet, the real question becomes: how much liquidity still needs a transaction to escape?

There’s also a design-time lesson underneath all of this. If winding a system down is this painful, it’s worth asking honestly, before launch, whether the workload really needed its own chain. Plenty of “tamper-evident” use cases are served better by a verifiable database or transparency log with an external anchor. There is no sequencer there to switch off.

- What should the minimum shutdown playbook for any L2 include before mainnet launch: communication, bridge claims, DeFi coordination, stablecoin policy, or something else?

A proper L2 shutdown playbook should map the whole process from the first warning to the final claim window. Teams need to decide early when users will be notified, how long the bridge will stay open, when the final snapshot happens, how L1 claims will work, and what happens to funds left unclaimed.

DeFi deserves a separate plan. Protocols should explain whether users can withdraw in an emergency, how positions can be unwound, and what happens to LP tokens, vault shares, collateral, and debt if the network stops processing transactions.

Stablecoins need the same clarity. Bridged assets and natively issued assets behave very differently when a network shuts down, so users should know exactly which rules apply to which token.

- In these situations, what’s usually the hardest part: technically stopping the network, legally allocating responsibility, or economically resolving frozen liquidity?

Switching off the network is probably the cleanest part of the whole process. The real problems start once you look at who still has money tied up, where that money sits, and who has the right to make decisions about it.

On the legal side, responsibility gets blurry very quickly. The L2 team runs the infrastructure, but it does not own every DeFi protocol built on top of it. On the economic side, things get even harder, because DeFi can create several layers of claims on the same underlying liquidity. If that liquidity is limited, trapped, or already promised in different forms, some claims simply can’t be honoured in full.

So the toughest job is finding a fair way to deal with frozen liquidity without paying the same underlying asset twice, creating new liabilities, or forcing the infrastructure team to act like a judge for every protocol in the ecosystem.

- How do you think this case will affect trust in smaller L2s and low-TVL zk-rollup ecosystems?

This case will make smaller L2s feel a lot less “safe by default.” Low TVL already raises eyebrows. Now users have another question to ask: if this network winds down, can I actually get out?

For zk-rollups, trust will come down to more than tech, fees, and speed. Sequencer dependency, bridge claims, DeFi escape routes, and stablecoin handling are all moving onto the checklist. A rollup now has to prove people can leave as cleanly as they came in.

Doświadczenie Andrew w pracy

Więcej na ten temat

Blog

Jak przenieść USDT z Tron do EVM bez wpadania w pułapkę płynności?

Blog

Top Layer 2 blockchains: znajdź odpowiednie rozwiązanie dla swojego projektu

Blog

What is a DID? A guide to digital identity

Skontaktuj się z nami

Umów się na rozmowę lub wypełnij poniższy formularz, a my odezwiemy się do Ciebie po przetworzeniu Twojego zgłoszenia.

Nazwa

Firma

E-mail

Telefon

Wiadomość

Wyślij nam wiadomość głosową

Załącz dokumenty

Prześlij plik

Można załączyć 1 plik o rozmiarze do 2 MB. Prawidłowe formaty plików: pdf, jpg, jpeg, png.

Klikając "Wyślij", wyrażasz zgodę na przetwarzanie Twoich danych osobowych przez Innowise zgodnie z naszą Politykę Prywatności w celu przekazania Ci odpowiednich informacji. Podając numer telefonu, zgadzasz się na kontakt za pośrednictwem połączeń głosowych, SMS-ów lub komunikatorów. Mogą obowiązywać opłaty za połączenia, wiadomości i transmisję danych.

Możesz także wysłać swoje zapytanie
na contact@innowise.com

Co dalej?

Po otrzymaniu i przetworzeniu zgłoszenia skontaktujemy się z Tobą, aby szczegółowo opisać projekt i podpisać umowę NDA w celu zapewnienia poufności.

Po zapoznaniu się z Twoimi potrzebami i oczekiwaniami, nasz zespół opracuje projekt wraz z zakresem prac, wielkością zespołu, wymaganym czasem i szacunkowymi kosztami.

Zorganizujemy spotkanie w celu omówienia oferty i ustalenia szczegółów.

Na koniec podpiszemy umowę, błyskawicznie rozpoczynając pracę nad projektem.