The longer I stay in crypto, the less I chase narratives and the more I pay attention to incentives.

It's easy to call a project "long-term," but the real question is what users do once the extra rewards start fading.

That was the reason I spent more time looking into Babylon.

The idea of staking BTC while keeping it in self-custody is interesting, but what I'm really watching is whether that creates lasting behavior or just temporary deposits. Incentives can attract capital quickly. Keeping that capital after yields normalize is a much harder test.

That's why I don't get too excited by TVL alone. A spike in deposits tells me people showed up. It doesn't tell me they'll still be there six months later.

I've made this mistake before—confusing short-term liquidity with long-term conviction. Now I spend more time watching user retention than headline numbers.

If Babylon can keep BTC stakers engaged even after the biggest incentive campaigns slow down, I'll probably have much more confidence in the opportunity. If not, the market will likely move on to the next place offering slightly better returns.

For me, that's the difference between capital that's visiting and capital that's staying.

What do you think matters more over the next cycle: higher yields, self-custody, or simply whichever protocol pays the most at the time?

@BabylonLabs_io #baby $BABY $DEXE $LAB