Been comparing what applying for a Bitcoin-backed loan looked like before Trustles Bitcoin Vaults (TB) versus what it looks like not and came to one thing
Imagine wanting to borrow against Bitcoin you already hold. The traditional path hands it to a custodian and trust them with it or wrap it into a token and trust that wrapping mechanism or bridge it somewhere and trust whoever operates that bridge. Now imagine a path where none of those three trust points have any existence at all. Would those genuinely feel like the same category of product to you?
That's the comparison worth making explicitly here.
Native Bitcoin backed borrowing through this specific integration removes the requirement to choose any of those three trust points. The Bitcoin stays where it already was on Bitcoin while still functioning as usable collateral through an established publicly accessible lending protocol.
I tested both mental models against the actual public tested experience directly. No custodian step occurred. No wrap step occurred. No bridge step occurred. Fair to say though that removing three trust points doesn't mean zero risk it means a different narrower risk surface still dependent on the underlying code and cryptography being correct.
Which of the three traditional trust points would you have found hardest to give up in the old model?
@BabylonLabs_io $BABY #baby $EUL $DEXE
Imagine wanting to borrow against Bitcoin you already hold. The traditional path hands it to a custodian and trust them with it or wrap it into a token and trust that wrapping mechanism or bridge it somewhere and trust whoever operates that bridge. Now imagine a path where none of those three trust points have any existence at all. Would those genuinely feel like the same category of product to you?
That's the comparison worth making explicitly here.
Native Bitcoin backed borrowing through this specific integration removes the requirement to choose any of those three trust points. The Bitcoin stays where it already was on Bitcoin while still functioning as usable collateral through an established publicly accessible lending protocol.
I tested both mental models against the actual public tested experience directly. No custodian step occurred. No wrap step occurred. No bridge step occurred. Fair to say though that removing three trust points doesn't mean zero risk it means a different narrower risk surface still dependent on the underlying code and cryptography being correct.
Which of the three traditional trust points would you have found hardest to give up in the old model?
@BabylonLabs_io $BABY #baby $EUL $DEXE