TL;DR
In late October 2025, Kadena’s core organization announced it would cease business operations and active maintenance. Markets reacted with a rapid price fall and exchanges scheduled delistings. The network may continue under miners and the community, but the company is gone. The evidence points to a gap between strong engineering and weak organizational practice: unclear revenue, poor governance signals, and abrupt communication. In my view, the damage to confidence is comparable to FTX’s impact on trust; this is an impact comparison, not an allegation of fraud.
We work with many Layer-1 and infrastructure teams. A pattern repeats: teams can explain token mechanics and consensus, yet cannot state a plain business model or show a cadence of delivery that sustains confidence through downturns. Kadena fits that pattern. The engineering case was real; the operating case was not.
When code is excellent but the company is brittle, investors are exposed. Technical professionalism is necessary; organizational credibility protects capital.
What happened
Around October 21 to 22, 2025, Kadena’s team posted that it would cease business operations and active maintenance. Price fell hard in the hours after, and major exchanges announced delistings in the following weeks. Most coverage also noted that a chain can persist under miners even if the operating company winds down.
Technical strength was not the problem
Kadena’s design combined Chainweb for parallelized Proof of Work throughput with Pact for safer, readable smart contracts. The repositories and documentation show sustained technical effort. None of this saved investors when basic company functions failed: revenue clarity, runway discipline, communication, and governance.
RMA™ lens: where the business broke
VaaSBlock’s RMA™ assesses six areas: Corporate Governance, Revenue Model, Planning and Transparency, Results Delivered, Team Proficiency, and Technology and Security. Applied to the public record:
- Revenue model: no durable commercial story visible through the cycle; market narratives centered on token price rather than operating revenue.
- Governance and transparency: immediate cessation after ongoing ecosystem activity created a credibility gap and magnified harm.
- Results delivered: few verifiable adoption milestones versus a steady drum of market reactions and exchange actions.
- Team proficiency: communication cadence and decision timing signalled operational strain beyond code maintenance.
- Technology and security: strong engineering does not equal a viable organization.
If you want an operating standard that surfaces these risks, see RMA™ Verified. The badge evaluates the company you rely on, not just the code you deploy.
About CertiK (scope matters)
CertiK is a smart-contract and protocol security firm. Their scope is code and security posture. It is not a verdict on business viability. Historical snapshots show Kadena present on Skynet with an audit workflow visible at one point; the current page shows different status. That is a reminder to investors: security portals evolve with new information, and a code review cannot replace governance, revenue clarity, or transparent communication.
For company-level assurance, look at standards that address organization and controls: SOC 2 and ISO/IEC 27001. These do not prove market fit, but they signal maturity in how a team manages risk.
Investor harm and the confidence problem
The shutdown, the price fall, and the subsequent delistings produced direct losses and an indirect trust shock. My view is straightforward: the confidence damage from this episode sits in the same league as prior collapses that shook the market. Again, this is a comparison of impact, not intent. When assumptions about continuity vanish in a day, retail holders usually bear the loss.
For an example of the kind of failure analysis journalists keep citing, see our report on continuous failures at a major exchange: Upbit CEX: a continuous pattern of failure.
This was predictable
We have seen other chains with credible engineering and weak operating models stumble for the same reasons. Without governance, revenue clarity, and disciplined communication, engineering cannot defend investor capital through a cycle. It will not be the last time.
What credible looks like
- State a plain business model and show confirmed demand; do not hide behind slogans.
- Publish governance, runway, and decision rules so holders understand how choices are made.
- Adopt the right standards: code audits for code; SOC 2 or ISO/IEC 27001 for company controls; RMA™ to connect it all to results and transparency.
- Disclose methods when you present results. If you publish numbers, publish how you got them.
See our trust framework note: Transparency Score launched.
FAQs
- Did Kadena’s network die with the company? No. Reporting distinguished between a company shutdown and a chain that can keep running under miners and community. The organization ended; the chain may persist.
- Is a smart-contract audit enough? No. An audit tests code and assumptions at a point in time. It does not test revenue, governance, runway, or the quality of communication. Pair audits with organizational standards and real adoption metrics.
- Why compare the confidence damage to FTX if there is no fraud claim? Because the reference is about impact. When continuity disappears overnight, holders experience a similar trust shock. This is an opinion about consequences, grounded in observable harm.
Sources
- Primary coverage of the October 2025 shutdown announcement and immediate market impact.
- Exchange delisting notices and help-center posts from November 2025.
- Kadena documentation on Chainweb and Pact, and public repositories.
- CertiK Skynet current page and archived Wayback snapshots.
- Standards context: AICPA SOC 2 and ISO/IEC 27001.
Last reviewed: 06 November 2025
