I assumed adding EVM support alongside CosmWasm would just widen Babylon's reach, more developers, more apps, simple addition. That's not fully how I see it now.

Two virtual machines on one chain means two separate developer environments, two sets of tooling, two liquidity pools that don't automatically talk to each other. A CosmWasm-native app and an EVM-native app can both sit on Babylon Genesis without sharing users or capital unless someone builds the bridge between them deliberately.

That's the quiet cost of dual-VM design. It solves the access problem, Solidity developers don't need to learn Cosmos tooling to build here, but it can create two smaller ecosystems instead of one larger one if adoption splits evenly instead of concentrating.

Babylon's basically betting the EVM side pulls in enough builders that the split is worth it. Maybe it is. Bitcoin-backed collateral is rare enough that either side alone could justify the architecture.

Still, does dual-VM actually unify liquidity around Bitcoin collateral, or does it just create two Babylons wearing one name?

@BabylonLabs_io #baby $BABY