I've noticed that most protocol failures aren't technical at all—they're coordination failures wearing a technical disguise. Code doesn't abandon a network; people do, once incentives stop making participation rational.

The market tends to assume security is a cryptographic property, something you engineer once and forget. But Bitcoin's idle capital, sitting unproductive for over a decade, suggests otherwise—it reveals a coordination problem, not a technology gap.

What makes this interesting is how @BabylonLabs_io approaches this: not by asking Bitcoin to change, but by asking what incentive structure would make holders want their capital securing other chains.

That distinction matters, because $BABY isn't just a governance token—it's the mechanism translating dormant trust into active participation.

The deeper issue may be that we've underpriced coordination as an economic primitive. At least in theory, alignment scales trust; whether it scales fast enough against mercenary capital remains the open question. #baby

Does Bitcoin's idle capital represent a coordination failure or a rational security choice?