Went through Babylon's co-staking examples over coffee and kept landing on the same number. 20,000. Closed the tab to answer a few messages, came back, and every example still seemed to circle back to it.
#baby @BabylonLabs_io
Whether the docs started with 0.1 BTC paired with 2,000 BABY, 0.5 BTC with 10,000 BABY, or 1 BTC with 20,000 BABY, they all pointed toward the same ratio. I was convinced I'd missed another rule until the final example paired 1 BTC with 40,000 BABY, yet the co-staking weight stayed exactly the same because the optimal ratio had already been reached. That was the point where I stopped looking for another formula and started wondering why the examples were designed that way in the first place.
Most staking systems quietly encourage adding more capital because more usually means better rewards. Babylon does something subtler. Even though the additional co-staking rewards come from 2.35% annual inflation, the mechanism keeps leading participants back toward the same BTC-to-BABY ratio instead of rewarding whoever simply commits the largest BABY position.
The more I looked at those examples, the less they felt like reward calculations and the more they felt like the protocol nudging two different communities toward the same equilibrium.
Makes me wonder if 20,000 isn't really a reward ratio at all. It feels more like Babylon's way of coordinating Bitcoin holders and BABY holders without ever having to say that's what it's doing.
$LAB $BABY
#baby @BabylonLabs_io
Whether the docs started with 0.1 BTC paired with 2,000 BABY, 0.5 BTC with 10,000 BABY, or 1 BTC with 20,000 BABY, they all pointed toward the same ratio. I was convinced I'd missed another rule until the final example paired 1 BTC with 40,000 BABY, yet the co-staking weight stayed exactly the same because the optimal ratio had already been reached. That was the point where I stopped looking for another formula and started wondering why the examples were designed that way in the first place.
Most staking systems quietly encourage adding more capital because more usually means better rewards. Babylon does something subtler. Even though the additional co-staking rewards come from 2.35% annual inflation, the mechanism keeps leading participants back toward the same BTC-to-BABY ratio instead of rewarding whoever simply commits the largest BABY position.
The more I looked at those examples, the less they felt like reward calculations and the more they felt like the protocol nudging two different communities toward the same equilibrium.
Makes me wonder if 20,000 isn't really a reward ratio at all. It feels more like Babylon's way of coordinating Bitcoin holders and BABY holders without ever having to say that's what it's doing.
$LAB $BABY