#baby $BABY The BTC stays put. What crosses over is a proof, a cryptographic attestation that a given UTXO exists, is locked, and hasn't been spent elsewhere. Ethereum doesn't hold Bitcoin. It holds a claim about Bitcoin's state, refreshed on some cadence, checked against light clients or signature thresholds instead of trust in a custodian's balance sheet. The friction shows up in the timing. Proofs lag actual chain state by however long finality takes on both sides, small most days, and quietly decisive on the days it isn't. What's less obvious is what this filters for. Capital willing to wait through verification delays behaves differently than capital chasing the fastest wrap. The real question isn't whether the proof holds. It's whether anyone stays once they've confirmed it does. assumed a dedicated Bitcoin-backed Spoke was just Aave making room for more collateral types, another line item on the risk parameters page. But isolating BTC liquidity into its own spoke does something quieter: it separates behavior. Bitcoin holders who bridge in aren't chasing yield the way stablecoin depositors are, they're testing whether their asset can work without being sold. That's a different kind of user, and a different kind of patience. The friction shows up early. Bridging, wrapping, verifying custody assumptions, none of that is instant, and each step filters out anyone who wasn't already convinced. What's left are depositors who arrive slower and, historically, leave slower too. A dedicated spoke doesn't manufacture demand. It just gives existing conviction somewhere specific to sit. Whether that becomes durable liquidity or a one-time migration of dormant BTC probably depends on something the interface can't control: what people were planning to do with that Bitcoin anyway.
@BabylonLabs_io $BABY