SaberPrice

(SBR)

Technically, the project is not dead but is currently in a maintenance or DAO-led state. The decentralized exchange remains functional on its host blockchain, allowing users to swap assets and provide liquidity. However, the total value locked in the protocol has decreased significantly from its peak, and major development from the original founding team has effectively ceased. The platform is now primarily managed by the project's decentralized autonomous organization, where token holders vote on occasional governance proposals.

The project's reputation was severely damaged by a scandal involving its founders. It was revealed that a lead developer used multiple pseudonymous identities to build a network of interlocking protocols. This strategy allowed them to double-count or triple-count deposits, artificially inflating the ecosystem's growth metrics to make it appear more active than it truly was. Furthermore, reports emerged regarding a federal investigation into the founders' roles in inflating these metrics and their connection to other anonymous project failures.

The decline was primarily caused by hyper-inflationary tokenomics and a loss of investor trust. The token was designed with high emission rates to attract liquidity providers, which created constant sell pressure as users liquidated their rewards. Once the scandal regarding the founders' fake developer identities was exposed, many institutional and retail participants exited the project. Additionally, the lack of a revenue-sharing mechanism or strong utility has made it difficult for the token to maintain its market position.

SBR is used for governance within the protocol's decentralized organization, where holders can vote on proposals such as directing rewards to specific liquidity pools. Users can also stake liquidity provider tokens on the platform to earn additional SBR through yield farming. However, unlike some modern decentralized exchanges, this protocol does not distribute a portion of trading fees to token holders, which limits its utility primarily to governance and incentive participation.

The protocol's smart contracts were audited in its early stages and are based on highly-tested industry models for stablecoin swaps. While the code is generally considered stable and functional for trading, high reputational risks remain. Because the original development team has moved on to other ventures and faces legal scrutiny, there is minimal official support. Users should be aware that the project is largely stagnant compared to more actively maintained alternatives.

A significant recovery is considered unlikely as the project lacks a unique competitive advantage. Most of its former market share has been captured by more modern decentralized exchanges and liquidity aggregators that offer better support and updated features. With stagnant development and the lingering effects of the founder controversy, the protocol faces significant hurdles in attracting new users or rebuilding the trust necessary to compete with current market leaders.