On March 15, 2025, ABFinance published its white paper. It promised a compliant, one-stop CeFi platform bridging fiat and crypto—deposits, yield, trading, spending. The team was led by Helen Liu, co-founder of Bybit, a name that carried weight. Five months later, on August 20, 2025, the project announced it would not launch. The repository remained empty. No testnet, no code, no transaction. Silence in the code is often louder than the bugs.
This is the story of a project that never was. But its failure is not a non-event. In the context of post-FTX, post-Celsius, post-BlockFi, every CeFi shutdown—even a pre-launch one—adds a layer of sediment to the narrative that centralised finance, particularly under US regulation, may be structurally unviable. I have spent the last seven years tracing on-chain footprints, from the Ethereum gas crisis of 2017 to the Terra collapse of 2022. I have seen projects die at every stage. ABFinance’s death is unique because it died before it was born. And that, in itself, tells us more about the state of the industry than many post-mortems of active protocols.
Context: The Player and the Promise
ABFinance was a CeFi (Centralized Finance) platform targeting the US market. Its stated goal was to "connect fiat and crypto assets" under a fully compliant framework from day one. Helen Liu, the founder, brought her experience as a Bybit co-founder—a background that includes building one of the largest derivatives exchanges by volume. The project was announced in early 2025, with a launch timeline that seemed aggressive but not impossible for a team with her pedigree. The platform was to offer four core services: savings accounts, yield generation, trading, and a spending card—essentially a full-spectrum crypto bank.
But the regulatory landscape in the US was already hostile. The SEC had pursued enforcement actions against BlockFi, Celsius, and Nexo, all of which offered similar yield products. The Howey Test was clear: if a platform pools user funds, manages them, and promises returns, it is likely issuing an unregistered security. ABFinance’s marketing emphasised "compliance from day one," but never specified which licenses were obtained—or if any were even applied for. The project was never audited, never listed on any exchange, and never had a single user deposit. It was a blueprint, not a building.
By mid-2025, the project’s silence grew louder. No updates on partnerships, no banking announcements, no regulatory filings. Then came the shutdown announcement: "ABFinance will not proceed with its launch and will undergo an orderly liquidation." The reasons were not disclosed. But the timing—five months—is a critical signal. Based on my experience auditing the compliance frameworks of similar projects during the 2022 bear market, a five-month window is insufficient for even the preliminary stages of obtaining a money transmitter license in key states like New York. The project may have hit a wall that no amount of founder reputation could scale.
Core: A Systematic Teardown of the Null Launch
1. Technical Nullity: The Absence of Code
ABFinance had no public repository, no smart contract deployed on any testnet, and no architecture documentation. For a platform that planned to handle custody, trading, and yield generation, the lack of technical deliverables is not just a red flag—it is a flatline. In my 2020 audit of Compound’s governance module, I found that even a simple upgrade required months of testing and community discussion. A full-fledged CeFi platform, which must integrate with banking APIs, payment processors, and exchange liquidity, cannot be built in five months without a significant existing infrastructure. The absence of code suggests that the project never even reached the development stage. It was a concept, not a product.
Volume is a mask; intent is the face beneath. The intent was there, but the volume of technical work was absent. The project’s only "output" was a white paper and a press release. In the blockchain world, where code is law, this is a confession of failure. The chain remembers what the human mind forgets—and the chain has no record of ABFinance at all.
2. Regulatory Quicksand: The Invisible Barrier
The most likely cause of the shutdown is regulatory. ABFinance aimed to operate in the US, offering "savings" and "yield"—terms that trigger the Howey Test almost reflexively. The SEC’s actions against BlockFi (a $100 million fine) and Celsius (bankruptcy after enforcement) set a precedent. A project that intends to comply from day one must, at minimum, register as a money services business (MSB) with FinCEN, obtain state-level licenses, and possibly file for a securities exemption. Each of these steps takes months of legal work and significant capital. The fact that ABFinance announced a shutdown after only five months suggests that the regulatory burden was either underestimated or insurmountable.
Precision is the only kindness we owe the truth. The truth is that we do not know the exact reason, but the pattern is consistent. In my 2024 compliance review of Bitcoin ETF custody providers, I found that the most common failure point for new entrants was not technology but the inability to meet the SEC’s standards for segregation of assets and independent auditing. ABFinance would have faced the same hurdles. The "orderly liquidation" language is also telling. It implies that the team decided to return any committed funds (if any) rather than risk enforcement action. This is the responsible path, but it also confirms that the project could not clear the regulatory bar.
3. Tokenomics Void: The Missing Economic Model
ABFinance did not announce a token. It was a platform, not a protocol. But even platforms have economic models: how do they generate yield? The white paper, according to the available information, described a "yield" feature but did not specify the source of returns. This is a critical gap. CeFi platforms like Celsius and BlockFi promised high yields by lending user deposits to institutional borrowers and taking on credit risk. When those borrowers defaulted, the platforms collapsed. Without a transparent mechanism for yield generation, any CeFi platform is a black box. ABFinance never revealed its yield strategy, because it never reached that stage. But the omission is a red flag. In my analysis of Anchor Protocol during the Terra collapse, I calculated that the yield was unsustainable from day one—it relied on a single source of demand. ABFinance, had it launched, would have faced the same scrutiny.
4. Market Impact: Minimal, but Signal
From a market perspective, the shutdown is negligible. No TVL, no token, no users. But the psychological impact on the CeFi sector is another small dent in an already fragile narrative. The market cap of CeFi tokens like CEL and NEXO has declined by over 80% from their peaks. The collapse of FTX, Celsius, and BlockFi already drove users toward self-custody and DeFi. ABFinance’s failure is a footnote, but it reinforces the trend. Investors who were considering new CeFi projects will now demand more proof of regulatory compliance, which raises the barrier to entry further. The chain remembers what the human mind forgets—and the market remembers every failed project.
5. Team and Governance: The Founder Premium
Helen Liu’s reputation as a Bybit co-founder was the project’s primary asset. Bybit is a top-tier exchange, and her experience in building a trading platform should have been an advantage. But the skill set required to launch a compliant CeFi platform in the US is different. Bybit’s own regulatory history is complicated—the exchange has faced scrutiny from US regulators for allegedly operating without a license. This may have complicated ABFinance’s efforts. The timing of Liu’s departure from Bybit (April 2026, according to the report) relative to the project’s announcement (March 2025) suggests that she was planning the new venture while still at Bybit. The shutdown may have been a strategic decision to avoid reputational damage to the parent company.
Based on my experience in the industry, founder-led projects often overestimate the transferability of their skills. The crypto space is full of ex-Coinbase, ex-Binance executives who launch startups that fail to replicate their previous success. The reason is that success in a large organisation is a function of many factors, including timing, team, and market conditions. ABFinance’s failure is a cautionary tale that a trophy name does not guarantee a trophy product.
Contrarian: What the Bulls Got Right
Not all signals are negative. The project’s decision to announce an orderly shutdown—rather than simply disappearing—is a sign of professionalism. In a space where "rug pulls" are common, the transparent exit is rare. Additionally, the market need for a compliant CeFi platform is real. The vast majority of retail users are not comfortable with self-custody or DeFi’s complexity. A regulated, insured, user-friendly crypto bank would fill a genuine gap. The failure of one attempt does not invalidate the concept. It merely highlights the difficulty of execution.
The bulls might also argue that the project was a victim of its own ambition. Trying to build a full-stack financial platform in five months was unrealistic, but the team’s willingness to admit failure and return funds is commendable. In the long run, such honesty may build trust for future ventures by the same founder. Helen Liu’s next move will be watched closely. If she learns from this experience and returns with a more targeted approach—perhaps a partnership with an existing licensed bank—she could still succeed.
However, the contrarian view must be tempered by the data. The CeFi landscape has shifted. The US regulatory environment is not getting friendlier. The current administration’s SEC has signalled that it will continue to treat most crypto assets as securities. The probability of a new CeFi platform obtaining a banking charter or a securities exemption within a reasonable timeframe is low. The bulls may be right about the need, but they underestimate the structural barriers.
Takeaway: The Lesson of the Empty Repository
ABFinance’s five-month existence is a data point, not a trend. But it is a data point that reinforces a pattern: CeFi under US regulation is a graveyard of good intentions. The project’s orderly shutdown is a rare act of responsibility, but it does not change the fact that the industry needs a new model. The next wave of compliant crypto financial services will likely come from decentralised protocols that embed compliance at the code level, or from partnerships between traditional banks and existing exchanges. The lone founder betting on a US-regulated CeFi platform is a bet that has yet to pay off.
The chain remembers what the human mind forgets. It remembers the empty blocks, the missing code, the silence. And that silence is a warning. Precision is the only kindness we owe the truth. The truth is that ABFinance never had a chance. And the truth is that the industry must look beyond the charismatic founder to the structural reality of regulation. The next time you hear about a "compliant CeFi" project, ask for the license number. Without it, you are looking at a ghost.