I was trying to model what a TBV borrower actually earns last night and found the economics harder to pin down than expected. Taking on stablecoin debt against BTC collateral means paying interest on one side — yet the vault itself generates no native yield. The carry equation felt surprisingly thin.

What seems interesting is how that quietly shapes the borrower profile. A Bitcoin holder entering TBV takes on rate exposure just to unlock liquidity. I'm not completely sure what stablecoin borrowing costs settle at for BTC-backed positions, but only specific use cases may actually make this work economically.

The question that comes to mind is whether most natural BTC holders have a genuine need for stablecoin liquidity they'd pay ongoing interest to access. It makes me think TBV's economics quietly self-select for a narrower audience than the total addressable market suggests on the surface.

Looking from the outside, I sometimes wonder if the economics attract short-term arbitrageurs more than long-term holders. A protocol needs depth from both. Whether borrowing costs settle at a level that genuinely serves patient capital — not just opportunistic positions — may define the user base more than the architecture itself — anyway, time will tell👍#baby $BABY @BabylonLabs_io $BLESS $UAI