After spending time comparing Bitcoin collateral models, I came away thinking the real difference isn't wrapped BTC versus native BTC—it's the trust assumptions each design asks users to accept. Wrapped BTC has played an important role in expanding interoperability, but it generally depends on custodians or bridge mechanisms that become part of the security model. Trustless Bitcoin Vaults (TBV) approaches the problem differently by keeping native Bitcoin as the collateral while connecting it to borrowing infrastructure. That changes custody without eliminating interoperability as the goal. I don't see this as one model replacing the other. Wrapped BTC may remain practical where broad ecosystem compatibility matters most, while TBV offers an alternative for users who prioritize minimizing intermediary trust. Reading the architecture reminded me that infrastructure decisions often outlast marketing narratives because they shape how risk is distributed. As native Bitcoin collateral evolves, which trade-off do you think users will value most over time? @BabylonLabs_io $BABY #baby
$TUT
$BICO
#BICO
#Epic
#zec
#lorenzoprotocol