What struck me is that "protection" here isn't a fixed property of the vault, it scales inversely with how many things get connected to it. $BABY #TBV @Babylon_Labs keeps the base guarantee constant, BTC stays on Bitcoin, spending still requires a valid BitVM3 proof, no matter what. But each new integration, Aave for borrowing, Gomining for mining yield, adds another external contract with its own logic that can act on or respond to the vault's state. The vault itself doesn't get weaker, but the total attack surface around it grows with every connection, since a bug in Aave's lending logic or Gomining's allocation system now sits adjacent to funds that are otherwise well protected. Traditional asset protection thinking treats "secure" as roughly static, once you've locked something down properly, it stays that way. This model treats protection as something that has to be re-evaluated every time the vault gets plugged into something new, because the core stays solid while the perimeter keeps expanding. New thinking, maybe, but it also means the safest moment for any given vault might quietly be before its first integration, not after.
#baby $BABY @BabylonLabs_io