My latest $BABY testnet session turned into a repayment stress test.
I rebuilt the same native Bitcoin-backed borrowing position three times to answer one question:
How much debt do I need to repay before the position is not only alive, but actually safe again?
I used 0.4000 in native collateral across two vaults:
Vault 1: 0.2487
Vault 2: 0.1513
At $66,384.70, total collateral value was $26,553.88. With a 78% collateral factor, the risk-adjusted value was $20,712.03.
I borrowed $19,700.00 through Aave v4.
Initial Health Factor: 1.0514.
Estimated liquidation price: $63,141.03.
When the price moved to $62,875.40, HF fell to 0.9958 and the position became liquidatable.
Then I tested three partial repayments, refreshing the position after every transaction:
$1,147.25 → debt $18,552.75 → HF 1.0574
$2,386.70 → debt $17,313.30 → HF 1.1331
$3,914.40 → debt $15,785.60 → HF 1.2427
The first payment technically rescued the position.
But only the third restored a real safety buffer. My calculation showed roughly $3,879.74 was needed to return to the 1.24 target.
That changed how I think about Repayment Efficiency.
A repayment should not only be measured by debt removed. It should be measured by liquidation distance restored.
My Public Testnet feedback is simple: before signing, show the exact amount required to reach HF 1.05, 1.10 and 1.24, which vault remains first in the liquidation order, and how much native collateral is still exposed.
The Borrow screen tells me how much liquidity I can take.
The Repay screen should tell me how much safety I am buying back.
Would you make the smallest payment above 1.0, or repay enough to rebuild the full safety target?
$KOMA $GIGGLE
@BabylonLabs_io #baby
I rebuilt the same native Bitcoin-backed borrowing position three times to answer one question:
How much debt do I need to repay before the position is not only alive, but actually safe again?
I used 0.4000 in native collateral across two vaults:
Vault 1: 0.2487
Vault 2: 0.1513
At $66,384.70, total collateral value was $26,553.88. With a 78% collateral factor, the risk-adjusted value was $20,712.03.
I borrowed $19,700.00 through Aave v4.
Initial Health Factor: 1.0514.
Estimated liquidation price: $63,141.03.
When the price moved to $62,875.40, HF fell to 0.9958 and the position became liquidatable.
Then I tested three partial repayments, refreshing the position after every transaction:
$1,147.25 → debt $18,552.75 → HF 1.0574
$2,386.70 → debt $17,313.30 → HF 1.1331
$3,914.40 → debt $15,785.60 → HF 1.2427
The first payment technically rescued the position.
But only the third restored a real safety buffer. My calculation showed roughly $3,879.74 was needed to return to the 1.24 target.
That changed how I think about Repayment Efficiency.
A repayment should not only be measured by debt removed. It should be measured by liquidation distance restored.
My Public Testnet feedback is simple: before signing, show the exact amount required to reach HF 1.05, 1.10 and 1.24, which vault remains first in the liquidation order, and how much native collateral is still exposed.
The Borrow screen tells me how much liquidity I can take.
The Repay screen should tell me how much safety I am buying back.
Would you make the smallest payment above 1.0, or repay enough to rebuild the full safety target?
$KOMA $GIGGLE
@BabylonLabs_io #baby