TBV doesn't exist for everyone for the same reason. Look closely and you'll find it serves at least three completely different groups, each with its own problem to solve. For long-term $BTC holders, the issue was never a lack of trust in the asset — it's a lack of liquidity when they need it. Sell, and you lose your position. Hold, and you have no cash when it matters. TBV offers a third path: lock temporarily, borrow stablecoins, keep the BTC you've built up over years untouched. For traders, the story is different. They don't need "BTC kept safe" — they need leverage without routing assets through a CeFi exchange or taking on bridge risk. TBV lets them use the BTC already in their wallet as collateral, borrow against it to open new positions, while the underlying asset never leaves their control throughout the process. For institutions, the problem sits at a whole other layer: compliance and transparency. Putting BTC on the balance sheet through a traditional custodian means taking on counterparty risk and a layer of trust that can't be independently verified. TBV replaces that layer of trust with publicly verifiable cryptographic proof — exactly what an institution needs to justify to a board or an auditor. Three different needs, three different reasons to care — but all resting on the same foundation: BTC never has to leave self-custody to become useful. That's probably why TBV isn't just a feature, it's an infrastructure layer worth multiple different user groups building on. @BabylonLabs_io $BABY #baby