MEV Capital drops 80%: An in-depth analysis of the asset management risks after being integrated into Belem and the deUSD decoupling impact

In October 2025, a stablecoin decoupling event evolved over four months into a full collapse of on-chain asset management firm MEV Capital. Its assets under management (AUM) plummeted from a peak of $1.5 billion to approximately $300 million, an 80% drop. The core team was absorbed by Luxembourg-based institution Belem, and partner Midas abruptly terminated its delegation. This was not just the failure of a single entity but a concentrated outbreak of risk management vulnerabilities in the institutionalization process of DeFi. Based on data from DefiLlama and multiple sources, this article reconstructs the event timeline, analyzes market controversies, and explores its profound impact on industry structure.

80% Asset Loss, Management Team Replaced by Belem

As of February 27, 2026, data from DefiLlama shows MEV Capital’s AUM had fallen to about $300 million, down 80% from its all-time high of $1.5 billion in October 2025. The direct trigger was the deUSD stablecoin decoupling event on October 10, 2025, which caused automatic liquidations across multiple protocols, resulting in MEV Capital suffering losses exceeding $10 million.

Meanwhile, Luxembourg-based digital asset investment platform Belem Capital announced on February 26, 2026, that it had terminated its management delegation with MEV Capital and internalized the latter’s institutional asset management team. This team included 10 asset management and risk technology experts, now integrated into Belem’s internal platform. Additionally, tokenization protocol Midas severed its partnership with MEV Capital and appointed RockawayX as the strategy manager for its mMEV and mevBTC products.

From Peak to Collapse in Four Months

MEV Capital is an on-chain asset management firm headquartered in Vilnius and Dubai, primarily staffed by French nationals. It has long focused on DeFi yield strategies, with significant exposure to the stablecoin deUSD issued by Elixir.

• October 10, 2025: deUSD decouples, its price briefly drops below $0.98, triggering automatic liquidations in major lending and derivatives protocols. MEV Capital, heavily invested in deUSD yield strategies, suffers direct losses exceeding $10 million.
• Q4 2025: AUM begins to sharply decline, shrinking from its peak of $1.5 billion. During the same period, the firm’s total revenue drops by 86.8% quarter-over-quarter, from $6.1 million in Q4 2025 to $805,000 in Q1 2026.
• February 2026: According to The Big Whale, CEO Laurent Bourquin (a former Societe Generale executive) steps back from the public eye; about 10 employees leave, leaving only around 5 remaining.
• February 26, 2026: Belem Capital officially announces internalization of MEV Capital’s team and ends the original management delegation. On the same day, Midas announces that RockawayX will take over strategy management.

The Roots of the Disaster: Single Strategy Dependency

Data from DefiLlama reveals the rapid and deep collapse of MEV Capital. Its AUM fell from a peak of $1.5 billion in October 2025 to about $300 million in February 2026, losing 80% of assets in four months.

Revenue figures are equally stark:

• Q1 2025: Peak total revenue of $10.62 million
• Q4 2025: Revenue drops to $6.1 million
• Q1 2026: Further shrinks to $804,720, a 92.4% decline from the peak

Quarterly profit also collapsed, from $608,910 in Q4 2025 to $99,020 in Q1 2026, an 83.7% decrease.

Behind these numbers lies a structural problem of overly concentrated strategies. MEV Capital relied heavily on deUSD-related yield strategies. As an algorithmic stablecoin, deUSD’s mechanism exposed vulnerabilities in collateral adequacy and liquidity during market volatility. When the decoupling occurred, automatic liquidations triggered a chain reaction, causing direct losses, redemption pressures, and reputational damage, leading to large-scale client withdrawals.

Industry Disaster or Growing Pains?

Market interpretations focus on three aspects:

• Risk management “industrial disaster”: The Big Whale, citing insiders, described deUSD decoupling as a “true industrial disaster” for MEV Capital. This highlights the failure of risk controls—over-concentration in a single asset and lack of hedging against liquidation thresholds.
• Management responsibility and governance issues: The CEO’s “temporary休息” (pause) is seen by some as an evasion of responsibility; the mass departure of team members hints at internal governance problems.
• Belem’s “emergency” integration: Belem emphasizes “risk concentration and execution framework,” widely viewed as a remedial measure for MEV Capital’s risk control gaps rather than mere business expansion.

Some also believe that MEV Capital’s experience reflects common growing pains of emerging asset classes under extreme market conditions, and should not be solely blamed on the team. DeFi remains in early stages, with immature risk management tools and experience.

The Logic Behind Cutting and Taking Over

Statements from involved parties should be viewed in the industry context:

• Belem claims “management delegation has naturally ended,” but the timing closely coincides with MEV Capital’s collapse, suggesting a hurried asset preservation move.
• Midas quickly shifted to RockawayX, indicating a complete loss of confidence in MEV Capital’s risk management, and reflecting high institutional demands for strategy stability.
• Media reports mention “about 10 people leaving,” consistent with Belem’s announcement of “integrating a 10-person team,” implying the core team of MEV Capital almost entirely migrated to Belem, with the original company essentially defunct.

Overall, the facts and public statements align: MEV Capital faced a crisis triggered by deUSD decoupling, and Belem absorbed its team to manage assets and maintain client continuity. However, details about internal decision-making and executive responsibility remain undisclosed.

A Wake-up Call for DeFi Institutionalization

The MEV Capital case will have multi-dimensional impacts on the DeFi asset management industry:

• Eroding institutional investor confidence: Traditional finance will scrutinize DeFi risks more strictly, especially regarding strategy concentration and extreme liquidation mechanisms.
• Iteration of risk control models: Yield strategies involving stablecoins like deUSD will face rigorous stress testing; managers may adopt diversified collateral and dynamic hedging.
• Increased regulatory attention: The incident, involving real client assets, could prompt regulators to revisit registration, custody, and disclosure requirements for DeFi asset managers.
• Concentration of industry resources: Institutions with stronger risk controls, like Belem and RockawayX, will take over more business, pushing the industry toward more compliant, institutional platforms.

Possible Future Directions

Facts

• MEV Capital’s AUM shrank from $1.5 billion to $300 million.
• Losses from deUSD decoupling exceeded $10 million; revenue declined sharply; assets absorbed by Belem.
• Belem and Midas have terminated their original partnership, with operations taken over by Belem’s internal team and RockawayX.

Views

• Media describes the event as an “industrial disaster,” emphasizing risk out of control.
• Belem sees internalizing the team as a “risk framework integration” measure.
• Some observers view this as a normal part of DeFi’s evolution and淘汰 (淘汰:淘汰,淘汰).

Speculations

• Short-term (3-6 months): Other asset managers exposed to deUSD or similar stablecoins may face potential losses, triggering chain reactions. However, institutions like Belem will accelerate acquiring quality teams and assets.
• Medium-term (6-12 months): The industry may develop standardized DeFi risk metrics, such as “strategy concentration limits” and “liquidation stress testing disclosures,” becoming essential for due diligence.
• Long-term (beyond 1 year): If regulators intervene, DeFi asset management could bifurcate into two camps—fully permissionless, decentralized protocols and regulated, compliant institutions, with the latter dominating traditional capital inflows.

Conclusion

The four-month rise and fall of MEV Capital is an inevitable phase in DeFi’s journey from grassroots to institutionalization. The deUSD decoupling was merely the spark; the root cause lies in overlooked risk controls and strategic resilience during rapid growth. Belem’s integration of the original team demonstrates a “crisis-driven evolution path.” Future success will depend on participants prioritizing risk management over scale expansion, earning lasting trust from institutional investors. For the entire crypto ecosystem, this event rings a warning bell: transparency and robustness are fundamental to DeFi’s mainstream acceptance.