The market still thinks BR should be valued like a reward token.
What I’m watching instead is whether it’s slowly becoming a coordination asset.
There’s a difference.@Bedrock
Reward tokens depend on emissions to attract attention. Coordination assets become useful because different participants need them to align incentives, direct liquidity, and participate in the system itself. The first model creates temporary demand. The second creates recurring demand.

Bedrock 2.0 feels closer to the latter than most people realize.
I’ve noticed that discussions around BR are still heavily focused on distribution schedules and unlocks, while much of the ecosystem conversation is shifting toward governance, integrations, capital efficiency, and how different stakeholders interact inside the network.#Bedrock
That usually happens before valuation frameworks change.

Markets often spend too much time measuring how many tokens are entering circulation and too little time asking why participants might choose to hold, use, or accumulate them in the first place.
The interesting shift isn't supply.
It's function.$BR
When a token starts coordinating behavior across an ecosystem, its value stops depending entirely on incentives and starts depending on participation quality.
This isn't about BR as a reward anymore. It's about BR as infrastructure for alignment.
$BTW $BABY

Market Seems