MINA BNB

Übersetzung ansehen

I know the real information and truth Current tokenomics documentation states that DUSK is the native token used for transaction fees/gas and staking. Current mainnet denomination uses 9 decimals, with 1 DUSK equal to 1,000,000,000 LUX.
Parameter Current documented value
Symbol DUSK
Mainnet decimals 9
Unit LUX = 1e-9 DUSK
Supply model 500M initial + 500M emitted over time
Maximum supply 1B DUSK
Primary utility Gas + staking
Supply and emission should be studied separately from market price. Tokenomics determines network incentives and security budget; market price determines external purchasing power. The economic protocol report exists specifically because monetary/security design is a protocol concern.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk

Verifiziert

Übersetzung ansehen

Dusk maintains a public audit repository. The listed reports include Plonk, Kadcast, Piecrust, BLS/hash reviews, protocol security, economic protocol design, Rusk consensus, Rusk node library, Phoenix, migration smart contracts, and 2026 ERC20/BEP20 assessments.
Audit area Publicly listed auditor/date
PLONK Porter Adams — Dec 2023
Kadcast Blaize Security — Apr 2024
Piecrust Porter Adams — May 2024
BLS and hash JP Aumasson — Jul 2024
Protocol security OAK Security — Sep 2024
Economic design POL Finance — Sep 2024
Rusk consensus OAK Security — Sep 2024
Rusk node library OAK Security — Sep 2024
Phoenix Jules de Smit — Sep 2024
Migration contract Zellic — Oct 2024
DUSK ERC20 Mochavi — Apr 2026
DUSK BEP20 Mochavi — Apr 2026
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk

Verifiziert

Übersetzung ansehen

Verifiziert

Übersetzung ansehen

Current tokenomics documentation states that DUSK is the native token used for transaction fees/gas and staking. Current mainnet denomination uses 9 decimals, with 1 DUSK equal to 1,000,000,000 LUX.
Parameter Current documented value
Symbol DUSK
Mainnet decimals 9
Unit LUX = 1e-9 DUSK
Supply model 500M initial + 500M emitted over time
Maximum supply 1B DUSK
Primary utility Gas + staking
Supply and emission should be studied separately from market price. Tokenomics determines network incentives and security budget; market price determines external purchasing power. The economic protocol report exists specifically because monetary/security design is a protocol concern.
$DUSK @Dusk #dusk

Verifiziert

Übersetzung ansehen

DuskEVM is the EVM-compatible execution environment in Dusk's modular direction. Current developer documentation describes Solidity/Vyper support and familiar tools such as Hardhat and Foundry. Deployment documentation lists DuskEVM mainnet chain ID 744 and testnet chain ID 745, with dedicated RPC and explorer endpoints.
The 2025 modular architecture article describes DuskEVM as an OP Stack-based execution layer settling through DuskDS. The current public website describes it as an EVM path for regulated applications and points to Hedger for confidential flows.
$DUSK #dusk @Dusk

I was looking at Dusk modular architecture again and the diagram makes more sense once you stop looking at it as three separate chains. It's really three different jobs being split across the stack. 1. DuskDS — the base layer This is the foundation. DuskDS is responsible for the underlying network functions around: * consensus * data availability * settlement So instead of putting every execution responsibility into the base layer, DuskDS is focused on keeping the underlying system coordinated and settled. 2. DuskEVM — the compatibility layer This is where EVM execution comes in. The interesting part isn't simply “Dusk supports EVM.” It's that EVM execution gets its own layer inside the modular architecture, giving developers a more familiar environment while keeping the underlying DuskDS layer separate. That separation can reduce the amount of integration work needed when building applications. 3. DuskVM — the privacy execution layer Then there is DuskVM. Its role is different again: privacy-focused execution. So the architecture isn't forcing public-style EVM execution and privacy-oriented execution into exactly the same environment. They're being separated into their own execution paths. And then there are two pieces connecting the whole design. 4. One DUSK across the stack The architecture keeps a single DUSK token across the layers. That matters because modular execution doesn't automatically mean fragmented economics. The execution environments can be separated while the token economy remains unified. 5. Native bridge between DuskDS and DuskEVM The layers also aren't supposed to behave like isolated islands. The architecture describes a native bridge concept between DuskDS and DuskEVM, giving the execution layer a path back to the underlying Dusk system. That's the part I find more interesting than the diagram itself. The architecture is basically saying: DuskDS handles the foundation. DuskEVM handles EVM execution. DuskVM handles privacy-focused execution. $DUSK #dusk @Dusk_Foundation

Übersetzung ansehen

I was looking at Dusk modular architecture again and the diagram makes more sense once you stop looking at it as three separate chains.

It's really three different jobs being split across the stack.

1. DuskDS — the base layer

This is the foundation.

DuskDS is responsible for the underlying network functions around:

* consensus
* data availability
* settlement

So instead of putting every execution responsibility into the base layer, DuskDS is focused on keeping the underlying system coordinated and settled.

2. DuskEVM — the compatibility layer

This is where EVM execution comes in.

The interesting part isn't simply “Dusk supports EVM.”

It's that EVM execution gets its own layer inside the modular architecture, giving developers a more familiar environment while keeping the underlying DuskDS layer separate.

That separation can reduce the amount of integration work needed when building applications.

3. DuskVM — the privacy execution layer

Then there is DuskVM.

Its role is different again: privacy-focused execution.

So the architecture isn't forcing public-style EVM execution and privacy-oriented execution into exactly the same environment.

They're being separated into their own execution paths.

And then there are two pieces connecting the whole design.

4. One DUSK across the stack

The architecture keeps a single DUSK token across the layers.

That matters because modular execution doesn't automatically mean fragmented economics.

The execution environments can be separated while the token economy remains unified.

5. Native bridge between DuskDS and DuskEVM

The layers also aren't supposed to behave like isolated islands.

The architecture describes a native bridge concept between DuskDS and DuskEVM, giving the execution layer a path back to the underlying Dusk system.

That's the part I find more interesting than the diagram itself.

The architecture is basically saying:

DuskDS handles the foundation.

DuskEVM handles EVM execution.

DuskVM handles privacy-focused execution.
$DUSK #dusk @Dusk

Übersetzung ansehen

Every time you prove who you are online, you usually end up revealing way more than needed. Show an ID to prove you're over 18, and suddenly a stranger knows your exact birthdate, your address, your full name. Citadel was built to fix exactly that problem.

It's Dusk identity and access layer a zero-knowledge-based, self-sovereign identity system. The idea is simple: prove a fact, not your whole file. Need to show you live in a certain country? Prove residency, nothing else. Need to prove you're old enough? Prove the age bracket, not your birthdate. Need to show you're an accredited investor? Prove that status alone the rest of your identity stays off-chain, untouched. In regulated markets, where eligibility has to be shown but privacy still matters, that distinction is everything.

Four players make this work, each with their own job. The user owns their identity and decides what actually gets disclosed. The issuer, or credential authority, is the one vouching for those credentials in the first place think of them as the source of truth behind the claim. The verifier, or the application, is the one asking prove it, without ever needing the full story behind the proof. And underneath all of it sits the Dusk protocol itself, running the settlement and verification layer that lets all of this happen without leaning on some central authority to make it trustworthy.

The whole point of Citadel comes down to one line: prove exactly enough, and not one bit more.
$DUSK #dusk @Dusk

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk_Foundation While going through Dusk approach to real-world assets, I spent some time understanding Zedger, and it's clearly built with a very different audience in mind compared to a typical DeFi token standard this is aimed at securities and regulated real-world assets (RWA). What struck me first was how much emphasis is put on regulatory compliance, privacy, and auditability all at the same time. Normally you'd think privacy and auditability are in tension either regulators can see everything, or users get privacy, rarely both. But Zedger is designed so both can coexist: transactions can stay confidential from the general public while still being auditable by the parties who legitimately need to verify them (like regulators or issuers). The functional side is what really shows the "securities" angle. Zedger supports: Minting and burning creating and retiring units of the asset, similar to how a company might issue or retire shares. Corporate actions things like dividend distributions, handled natively at the protocol/asset level instead of being bolted on. Issuer-initiated force transfers this one stood out to me the most, because it's not something you'd typically see in a permissionless crypto asset. It reflects real securities law, where an issuer sometimes needs the legal authority to move or reclaim tokens (court orders, compliance actions, lost-key recovery, etc.). I also came across the term XSC (Confidential Security Contract), and I want to be precise about what that actually means. My initial assumption was that XSC might just be another name for the whole Dusk chain but that's wrong. Zedger is what provides the underlying foundation for XSC functionality, and XSC itself is really an asset/business-standard layer basically a template or standard for how a specific type of confidential security token should behave on top of the base protocol. So: Dusk = the chain, Zedger = the securities protocol, XSC = the standard/contract pattern built using Zedger for a specific security-token use case.

Übersetzung ansehen

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk While going through Dusk approach to real-world assets, I spent some time understanding Zedger, and it's clearly built with a very different audience in mind compared to a typical DeFi token standard this is aimed at securities and regulated real-world assets (RWA).

What struck me first was how much emphasis is put on regulatory compliance, privacy, and auditability all at the same time. Normally you'd think privacy and auditability are in tension either regulators can see everything, or users get privacy, rarely both. But Zedger is designed so both can coexist: transactions can stay confidential from the general public while still being auditable by the parties who legitimately need to verify them (like regulators or issuers).

The functional side is what really shows the "securities" angle. Zedger supports:

Minting and burning creating and retiring units of the asset, similar to how a company might issue or retire shares.
Corporate actions things like dividend distributions, handled natively at the protocol/asset level instead of being bolted on.
Issuer-initiated force transfers this one stood out to me the most, because it's not something you'd typically see in a permissionless crypto asset. It reflects real securities law, where an issuer sometimes needs the legal authority to move or reclaim tokens (court orders, compliance actions, lost-key recovery, etc.).

I also came across the term XSC (Confidential Security Contract), and I want to be precise about what that actually means. My initial assumption was that XSC might just be another name for the whole Dusk chain but that's wrong. Zedger is what provides the underlying foundation for XSC functionality, and XSC itself is really an asset/business-standard layer basically a template or standard for how a specific type of confidential security token should behave on top of the base protocol. So: Dusk = the chain, Zedger = the securities protocol, XSC = the standard/contract pattern built using Zedger for a specific security-token use case.

So let me walk you through this Dusk entire privacy architecture is really built on top of a specific stack of cryptographic primitives, and here is the thing, each one is doing a job none of the others can actually do. Start with BLS12-381 that's what @Dusk_Foundation uses to power signatures and most of its ZK-related cryptography. Now, specifically for the Phoenix privacy layer, Dusk relies on something called JubJub, which is a SNARK-friendly curve. And honestly, without it, shielded proofs on Dusk would be way too slow to actually run in practice. For authentication across the network, $DUSK sticks with Schnorr signatures a clean, well-tested choice, nothing experimental about it. Now, inside Dusk's ZK circuits, hashing is handled by Poseidon, and this one was built specifically to stay cheap in a context where older hash functions just get expensive fast once you drop them into a circuit. When it comes to state and membership proofs, #dusk uses a sparse Merkle tree, and the entire proving and verification layer runs on PLONK. On top of all that, Dusk also applies something called BLS aggregation basically it compresses an entire committee's signatures into a single package, instead of the network having to verify every single one individually. Let me just lay out the full lineup so it's clear: BLS12-381 — signatures and ZK-related cryptography JubJub — SNARK-friendly curve powering Phoenix-style privacy Schnorr — signature and authentication Poseidon — ZK-friendly hashing Sparse Merkle tree — membership and state proofs PLONK — ZK proving and verification BLS aggregation — compresses committee signatures into one Now here is something worth keeping in mind none of these primitives really mean much just sitting there on paper. Dusk cryptography can be completely sound mathematically and still get undermined in practice think bad serialization, a missed subgroup check, weak transcript binding, or skipped domain separation. So if you are really trying to judge Dusk cryptographic foundation fairly.

Übersetzung ansehen

So let me walk you through this Dusk entire privacy architecture is really built on top of a specific stack of cryptographic primitives, and here is the thing, each one is doing a job none of the others can actually do.

Start with BLS12-381 that's what @Dusk uses to power signatures and most of its ZK-related cryptography. Now, specifically for the Phoenix privacy layer, Dusk relies on something called JubJub, which is a SNARK-friendly curve. And honestly, without it, shielded proofs on Dusk would be way too slow to actually run in practice.

For authentication across the network, $DUSK sticks with Schnorr signatures a clean, well-tested choice, nothing experimental about it. Now, inside Dusk's ZK circuits, hashing is handled by Poseidon, and this one was built specifically to stay cheap in a context where older hash functions just get expensive fast once you drop them into a circuit.

When it comes to state and membership proofs, #dusk uses a sparse Merkle tree, and the entire proving and verification layer runs on PLONK. On top of all that, Dusk also applies something called BLS aggregation basically it compresses an entire committee's signatures into a single package, instead of the network having to verify every single one individually.

Let me just lay out the full lineup so it's clear:

BLS12-381 — signatures and ZK-related cryptography
JubJub — SNARK-friendly curve powering Phoenix-style privacy
Schnorr — signature and authentication
Poseidon — ZK-friendly hashing
Sparse Merkle tree — membership and state proofs
PLONK — ZK proving and verification
BLS aggregation — compresses committee signatures into one

Now here is something worth keeping in mind none of these primitives really mean much just sitting there on paper. Dusk cryptography can be completely sound mathematically and still get undermined in practice think bad serialization, a missed subgroup check, weak transcript binding, or skipped domain separation. So if you are really trying to judge Dusk cryptographic foundation fairly.

Okay so here is the thing about @Dusk_Foundation sortition process — its non-interactive, which just means every single node figures out the same result on its own, no back-and-forth needed with anyone else. Why does that work? Simple — everyone's plugging in the exact same inputs, so no matter who runs the numbers, they land on the same answer every time. The basic idea is this: provisioners who qualify get handed credits based on how much they've staked. Stake more, get more credits. That's what they call "deterministic extraction." And because it works this way, two things fall into place naturally anyone can go check the selection was legit, and people with bigger stakes naturally get better odds. There is one thing doing a lot of work behind the scenes here though the seed. It travels along with the chain, and whoever generates the current block updates it before passing it on. When a score needs to be worked out, Dusk runs SHA3 hashing on three things at once: the seed, the round/step details, and the credit number. Put those together and you get a one-of-a-kind score. Why go through all this trouble? Mainly so nobody can guess ahead of time who's getting picked next as generator or committee member that unpredictability is what keeps bad actors from gaming the system. But here is the flip side: once the data's actually on-chain, anyone can look back and confirm everything was done properly. A few terms worth knowing here: Eligibility — your stake has to hit a minimum amount and also sit long enough to count as "mature" before you're in the running. Epoch — right now on Dusk, an epoch lasts 2160 blocks, then it resets and a new one kicks off. Credit — basically your stake translated into a unit that gets used in the selection math. Seed — the randomness that comes straight from the chain itself, getting refreshed with every block signature. Committee — a random bunch of provisioners picked to either validate blocks or ratify them. $DUSK #dusk

Übersetzung ansehen

Okay so here is the thing about @Dusk sortition process — its non-interactive, which just means every single node figures out the same result on its own, no back-and-forth needed with anyone else. Why does that work? Simple — everyone's plugging in the exact same inputs, so no matter who runs the numbers, they land on the same answer every time.

The basic idea is this: provisioners who qualify get handed credits based on how much they've staked. Stake more, get more credits. That's what they call "deterministic extraction." And because it works this way, two things fall into place naturally anyone can go check the selection was legit, and people with bigger stakes naturally get better odds.

There is one thing doing a lot of work behind the scenes here though the seed. It travels along with the chain, and whoever generates the current block updates it before passing it on. When a score needs to be worked out, Dusk runs SHA3 hashing on three things at once: the seed, the round/step details, and the credit number. Put those together and you get a one-of-a-kind score.

Why go through all this trouble? Mainly so nobody can guess ahead of time who's getting picked next as generator or committee member that unpredictability is what keeps bad actors from gaming the system. But here is the flip side: once the data's actually on-chain, anyone can look back and confirm everything was done properly.

A few terms worth knowing here:

Eligibility — your stake has to hit a minimum amount and also sit long enough to count as "mature" before you're in the running.

Epoch — right now on Dusk, an epoch lasts 2160 blocks, then it resets and a new one kicks off.

Credit — basically your stake translated into a unit that gets used in the selection math.

Seed — the randomness that comes straight from the chain itself, getting refreshed with every block signature.

Committee — a random bunch of provisioners picked to either validate blocks or ratify them.
$DUSK #dusk

Verifiziert

Übersetzung ansehen

So i totally understand $DUSK uses something called Kadcast as its main protocol for spreading blocks, transactions, and consensus votes across the network. It's not something built from zero it actually takes a lot of inspiration from Kademlia distributed hash table setup, especially the whole XOR distance concept. Basically, instead of just dumping messages onto every single neighbor like old-school gossip protocols do, it's smarter about it — it sends data through specific, structured paths using selected peers.

Breaking it down a bit:

Every node has its own identifier, and the XOR distance between nodes decides how peers get organized around each other.
Peers aren't just randomly connected they're grouped into what's called routing buckets, based on how far apart they are from a node.
When a message needs to spread, it doesn't go to everyone at once it's passed along through a chosen set of peers instead of flooding the whole network.
Since each bucket holds more than one peer, there's a safety net if one peer drops out or fails, there are other paths ready to carry the message forward.
There's also a security layer built in messages get signed, and before anything gets forwarded further, that signature is checked. This helps stop bad actors from messing with how data spreads.

And in terms of actual performance, @Dusk has reported that this setup cuts bandwidth usage by around 25–50% compared to regular gossip-style protocols. That said, it's worth keeping in mind this number comes from Dusk's own testing and design claims it's not some fixed guarantee that'll hold true in every single setup or condition out there. #dusk

Übersetzung ansehen

‎I wanted to actually try Babylon testnet myself, not just read about it. First thing I needed was tBABY tokens. I figured there'd be one faucet somewhere, buried in a Discord. Turns out there are three, all live, all working right now.
‎
‎I started with the Xangle faucet. Nothing complicated paste your wallet address, hit Request tBABY, and you're done. It gives 0.1 tBABY per wallet, once every 24 hours.
‎
‎Then I found HoodScan faucet, and this one surprised me a bit. It's not just for Babylon it's a multi-chain faucet covering Cosmos, EVM, and Bitcoin chains from one screen. I picked Babylon Testnet from the chain dropdown, connected my wallet provider, and requested tokens the same way.
‎
‎Last one was IT Rocket faucet, sitting right inside their full Babylon testnet explorer. Validators, governance, staking, IBC, supply all of it's there. I just dropped my address in the Get Tokens box and it went through.
‎
‎Across all three, the pattern was the same: small amounts, roughly 0.02 to 0.1 tBABY per request, capped at 1 tBABY every 24 hours per wallet or IP.
‎
‎None of this looked flashy on screen. But that's kind of the point. A faucet is the boring front door to any testnet, and when I see three independent teams all running one for the same network at the same time, that tells me something there's real builder activity happening around Babylon Trustless Bitcoin Vaults right now, not just talk.
‎
‎Sometimes the smallest, most unglamorous part of a project is the clearest sign that people are actually building on it.
$BABY #baby @BabylonLabs_io

Übersetzung ansehen

‎I used to think Bitcoin confirmations were enough. Then I learned what Babylon does when the impossible happens.
‎
‎I was reading how Babylon handles one of Bitcoin rarest events: a deep blockchain reorganization (reorg).
‎
‎Imagine Bitcoin reaches block 150, then an unexpected 10-block reorg rolls the chain back to block 140.
‎
‎Instead of pretending nothing happened, Babylon Genesis immediately pauses the network to protect Bitcoin staking.
‎
‎Every BTC delegation, inclusion proof, or undelegation confirmed from block 140 onward is rechecked and removed if it's no longer valid. Delegations confirmed before block 139 remain untouched because their proof still exists on Bitcoin canonical chain.
‎
‎The protocol then recalculates voting power, finality, and rewards across its three core modules before resuming normal operation.
‎
‎This is why BABY, Babylon Genesis, and Trustless Bitcoin Vaults work together so well. TBV can only secure native Bitcoin if Babylon always follows the real Bitcoin chain, even during extremely rare network events.
‎
‎Most people focus on yields and staking rewards.
‎
‎I pay attention to the recovery system that's built for the 0.001% scenario because that's where real infrastructure proves itself.
$BABY #baby @BabylonLabs_io

BTC-1,68%

Übersetzung ansehen

‎I assumed Bitcoin staking was just about locking BTC and earning rewards. The deeper I looked, the more I realized it's powered by an entire security architecture working behind the scenes.
‎
‎The Babylon network is built on multiple layers, including Bitcoin scripts, Babylon nodes powered by the Cosmos SDK, Finality Providers, and supporting software that work together to securely connect with the Bitcoin network.
‎
‎At the top layer, Checkpointing keeps Bitcoin and Babylon Genesis synchronized. A BTC staking monitor and indexer track staking activity, while the Vigilante Network continuously watches both chains for malicious behavior. Anyone can run these nodes and help strengthen the network.
‎
‎The middle layer is the Babylon Node, built on the Cosmos SDK. It handles core functions such as Epoching, Checkpointing, BTC Staking, Finality, Rewards, BTC Light Client, Zone Concierge, and BTC Checkpointing, while Babylon Genesis reaches consensus through CometBFT.
‎
‎At the foundation, the EOTS Manager, Finality Provider nodes, and the Covenant Emulator validate external network data and enforce staking, unbonding, and slashing rules. IBC Relayers and Babylon Contracts enable secure communication and standardized data exchange between networks secured by Bitcoin.
‎
‎And the good thing is $BICO and $KOMA made my day with some solid profits today, but learning how Babylon is expanding Bitcoin utility feels like an even bigger win.
$BABY #baby @BabylonLabs_io

Verifiziert

‎Ich habe heute aufgehört, auf dem BABY-Chart zu scrollen, und stattdessen den Vault-Explorer geöffnet. Was ich gefunden habe, war interessanter als jede Kerze.
‎
‎Babylon Trustless Bitcoin-Vaults sind nicht länger nur ein Konzept. Sie sind live im Testnet, in Aave v4 integriert, und jede einzelne Aktion ist On-Chain und nachvollziehbar.
‎
‎Die Zahlen:
‎
‎TVL liegt bei 7,49 sBTC (~$517K), plus 3,02 sBTC in nur 30 Tagen
‎320 Vaults sind aktiv von insgesamt 2,12K
‎28,35% Auslastung, aktuell $146,6K gegen BTC-Kollateral ausgeliehen
‎0,517 sBTC ($35,7K) ist bereits sauber durch Liquidationen gelaufen, On-Chain
‎
‎Aber der Teil, der tatsächlich meine Aufmerksamkeit bekommen hat, war der Activity-Feed. Jeder Vault durchläuft einen sichtbaren Lebenszyklus: Signatures Collected, Pending, Verified, Available, Redeemed. Anbieter wie Babylon Labs VP 0 und Kiln arbeiten diese Vaults aktiv in Echtzeit – mit vollständigen Transaktions-Hashes und Blocknummern, die an jeden Schritt angehängt sind.
‎
‎Kein Black-Box. Kein „Vertraut uns“. Nur ein System, das genau das tut, was es behauptet – offen.
‎
‎Die meisten Leute fragen immer noch, warum BABY nicht gepumpt ist. Mich interessiert eher, was passiert, wenn das über das Testnet hinaus skaliert und aus Hunderten von Vaults hunderttausende werden.
‎
‎Der Chart ist im Moment der am wenigsten interessante Teil dieser Geschichte.
$BABY #baby @BabylonLabs_io

OMG,Warum Babylon TBV-Vault-Isolation meine Perspektive verändert hat ‎ ‎Als ich zum ersten Mal von Bitcoin DeFi gehört habe, ließ mich eine Frage nicht los. ‎ ‎Was passiert, wenn ein Protokoll gehackt wird? ‎ ‎In den meisten Systemen mit Wrapped BTC oder brückenbasierten Lösungen wird das Bitcoin von allen zusammen gepoolt. Es ist, als würden Hunderte ihre Gelder in einem einzigen riesigen Tresor aufbewahren. Wenn dieser Tresor kompromittiert wird, können Tausende Nutzer gleichzeitig betroffen sein. ‎ ‎Babylon TBV verfolgt einen völlig anderen Ansatz. ‎ ‎Anstatt das BTC von allen in einen gemeinsamen Pool zu legen, bekommt jeder Nutzer seinen eigenen Bitcoin-Tresor. Stell es dir vor, als hättest du eine eigene Sicherheitsbox, statt einen riesigen Schließfachbereich mit allen anderen zu teilen. ‎ ‎Jeder Tresor ist: ‎ ‎Vom Besitzer des Bitcoins erstellt. ‎An eine einzelne DeFi-Anwendung gebunden. ‎Durch vorab definierte Bitcoin-Script-Regeln geschützt. ‎Direkt durch das Bitcoin-Netzwerk durchgesetzt. ‎ ‎Das bedeutet: Wenn eine DeFi-Anwendung einen Bug hat oder ein Governance-Versagen erleidet, bringt das nicht automatisch jeden Bitcoin-Inhaber in Gefahr. Die Auswirkungen bleiben auf die Tresore begrenzt, die mit genau dieser Anwendung verbunden sind. ‎ ‎Eine weitere Funktion, die ich beeindruckend fand, ist, dass dein Bitcoin nicht plötzlich irgendwohin umgeleitet werden kann. Die Abgabeziele werden festgelegt, wenn der Tresor erstellt wird, und Bitcoin selbst erzwingt diese Regeln über Taproot-Skripte. ‎ ‎Noch besser: Weil jeder Tresor isoliert ist, kann dein BTC nicht heimlich wiederverwendet, weiterverpfändet oder hinter den Kulissen mit den Geldern anderer vermischt werden. ‎ ‎Je mehr ich Babylon TBV untersuche, desto klarer wird mir: Es geht nicht nur darum, Bitcoin in DeFi zu bringen. Es geht darum, Bitcoin in DeFi zu bringen, ohne die Sicherheitsprinzipien zu opfern, die Bitcoin überhaupt erst wertvoll gemacht haben. $BABY #baby @babylonlabs_io

OMG,Warum Babylon TBV-Vault-Isolation meine Perspektive verändert hat
‎
‎Als ich zum ersten Mal von Bitcoin DeFi gehört habe, ließ mich eine Frage nicht los.
‎
‎Was passiert, wenn ein Protokoll gehackt wird?
‎
‎In den meisten Systemen mit Wrapped BTC oder brückenbasierten Lösungen wird das Bitcoin von allen zusammen gepoolt. Es ist, als würden Hunderte ihre Gelder in einem einzigen riesigen Tresor aufbewahren. Wenn dieser Tresor kompromittiert wird, können Tausende Nutzer gleichzeitig betroffen sein.
‎
‎Babylon TBV verfolgt einen völlig anderen Ansatz.
‎
‎Anstatt das BTC von allen in einen gemeinsamen Pool zu legen, bekommt jeder Nutzer seinen eigenen Bitcoin-Tresor. Stell es dir vor, als hättest du eine eigene Sicherheitsbox, statt einen riesigen Schließfachbereich mit allen anderen zu teilen.
‎
‎Jeder Tresor ist:
‎
‎Vom Besitzer des Bitcoins erstellt.
‎An eine einzelne DeFi-Anwendung gebunden.
‎Durch vorab definierte Bitcoin-Script-Regeln geschützt.
‎Direkt durch das Bitcoin-Netzwerk durchgesetzt.
‎
‎Das bedeutet: Wenn eine DeFi-Anwendung einen Bug hat oder ein Governance-Versagen erleidet, bringt das nicht automatisch jeden Bitcoin-Inhaber in Gefahr. Die Auswirkungen bleiben auf die Tresore begrenzt, die mit genau dieser Anwendung verbunden sind.
‎
‎Eine weitere Funktion, die ich beeindruckend fand, ist, dass dein Bitcoin nicht plötzlich irgendwohin umgeleitet werden kann. Die Abgabeziele werden festgelegt, wenn der Tresor erstellt wird, und Bitcoin selbst erzwingt diese Regeln über Taproot-Skripte.
‎
‎Noch besser: Weil jeder Tresor isoliert ist, kann dein BTC nicht heimlich wiederverwendet, weiterverpfändet oder hinter den Kulissen mit den Geldern anderer vermischt werden.
‎
‎Je mehr ich Babylon TBV untersuche, desto klarer wird mir: Es geht nicht nur darum, Bitcoin in DeFi zu bringen. Es geht darum, Bitcoin in DeFi zu bringen, ohne die Sicherheitsprinzipien zu opfern, die Bitcoin überhaupt erst wertvoll gemacht haben.
$BABY #baby @BabylonLabs_io

Übersetzung ansehen

People often hear "Trustless Bitcoin Vault" and assume it's just another crypto buzzword.
I thought the same at first.
But after spending time reading the TBV research, I realized it's something very different. What impressed me most wasn't the name—it was the way the entire system is designed.
Everything starts with a Deposit.
When BTC enters a Trustless Bitcoin Vault, it isn't simply locked. The protocol already defines every valid path that Bitcoin can take from that point forward. Whether the vault ends with a normal withdrawal or a dispute, those possibilities are established from the beginning.
Then comes the Assert step.
This is where Lamport Signatures become important.
Instead of asking anyone to trust a participant's claim, the protocol asks for cryptographic proof. A Lamport Signature proves that a participant committed to a specific state without exposing their secret key. It's evidence, not reputation.
If something doesn't look right, the protocol doesn't rely on human judgment.
It opens a challenge process.
The Verifier can challenge the commitment, and from there Bitcoin Script enforces the outcome. The participant either proves the commitment was valid, or loses the ability to continue. There isn't a hidden escape hatch or manual intervention.
Timelocks make sure nothing happens too quickly.
A withdrawal cannot happen immediately. Bitcoin waits for a predefined number of blocks, giving enough time for any invalid commitment to be challenged before funds can move.
To me, that's one of the smartest parts of the design.
The security isn't based on trusting operators, committees, or bridge validators. It's based on predefined Bitcoin Script conditions like CheckSig, HashLock, RelTimelock, and CheckLampSig, all working together to enforce the rules.
Every possible outcome is defined before the vault is even used.
That's why I think Babylon TBV stands out.
It doesn't ask Bitcoin users to trust another system.
$BABY #baby @BabylonLabs_io

BTC-1,68%

‎Ich sehe immer wieder Leute fragen, ob es überhaupt eine echte Nachfrage nach Bitcoin in DeFi gibt. ‎ ‎Als ich mir die Zahlen angesehen habe, schien die Antwort ziemlich eindeutig zu sein. ‎ ‎Allein auf Aave V3 werden bereits Milliarden Dollar an Bitcoin-gestützten Vermögenswerten als Sicherheit genutzt: ‎ ‎WBTC: 2,9 Mrd. $ bereitgestellt ‎cbBTC: 1,8 Mrd. $ bereitgestellt ‎tBTC: 209,7 Mio. $ bereitgestellt ‎LBTC: 167,4 Mio. $ bereitgestellt ‎ ‎Also ist Nachfrage nicht das Problem. ‎ ‎Die größere Frage lautet: Warum liegt so viel natives Bitcoin immer noch abseits. ‎ ‎Meiner Meinung nach läuft es auf Vertrauen hinaus. ‎ ‎Viele Bitcoin-Inhaber schätzen die Selbstverwaltung über alles andere. Sie interessieren sich zwar für DeFi, aber nicht, wenn das bedeutet, dass sie ihren BTC einwickeln müssen, sich auf Custodians verlassen oder zusätzliche Vertrauensannahmen einführen. ‎ ‎Darum haben mich @babylonlabs_io Trustless Bitcoin Vaults aufmerksam gemacht. ‎ ‎Die Idee ist nicht, Menschen davon zu überzeugen, Bitcoin in DeFi zu nutzen. ‎ ‎Die Idee ist, es möglich zu machen, ohne ihnen abzuverlangen, die Prinzipien aufzugeben, die sie überhaupt erst zu Bitcoin gebracht haben. ‎ ‎Wenn natives BTC als Sicherheit verwendet werden kann und dabei weiterhin durch das Bitcoin-Netzwerk gesichert bleibt, könnte das eine viel größere Menge an brachliegendem Bitcoin freisetzen als es die heutigen Wrapped-Lösungen jemals könnten. ‎ ‎Das finde ich am spannendsten. ‎ ‎Die Nachfrage ist bereits da. ‎ ‎Jetzt geht es darum, die Infrastruktur zu bauen, die Bitcoin in DeFi einbringen kann, ohne dabei zu kompromittieren, was Bitcoin wertvoll macht. ‎ ‎Für mich versucht Babylon nicht, eine Nachfrage nach Bitcoin in DeFi zu schaffen. Diese Nachfrage gibt es bereits. Es geht darum, die vertrauenslose Infrastruktur aufzubauen, die es nativem Bitcoin endlich ermöglichen könnte, diese Nachfrage zu erfüllen. ‎$BABY #baby

‎Ich sehe immer wieder Leute fragen, ob es überhaupt eine echte Nachfrage nach Bitcoin in DeFi gibt.
‎
‎Als ich mir die Zahlen angesehen habe, schien die Antwort ziemlich eindeutig zu sein.
‎
‎Allein auf Aave V3 werden bereits Milliarden Dollar an Bitcoin-gestützten Vermögenswerten als Sicherheit genutzt:
‎
‎WBTC: 2,9 Mrd. $ bereitgestellt
‎cbBTC: 1,8 Mrd. $ bereitgestellt
‎tBTC: 209,7 Mio. $ bereitgestellt
‎LBTC: 167,4 Mio. $ bereitgestellt
‎
‎Also ist Nachfrage nicht das Problem.
‎
‎Die größere Frage lautet: Warum liegt so viel natives Bitcoin immer noch abseits.
‎
‎Meiner Meinung nach läuft es auf Vertrauen hinaus.
‎
‎Viele Bitcoin-Inhaber schätzen die Selbstverwaltung über alles andere. Sie interessieren sich zwar für DeFi, aber nicht, wenn das bedeutet, dass sie ihren BTC einwickeln müssen, sich auf Custodians verlassen oder zusätzliche Vertrauensannahmen einführen.
‎
‎Darum haben mich @BabylonLabs_io Trustless Bitcoin Vaults aufmerksam gemacht.
‎
‎Die Idee ist nicht, Menschen davon zu überzeugen, Bitcoin in DeFi zu nutzen.
‎
‎Die Idee ist, es möglich zu machen, ohne ihnen abzuverlangen, die Prinzipien aufzugeben, die sie überhaupt erst zu Bitcoin gebracht haben.
‎
‎Wenn natives BTC als Sicherheit verwendet werden kann und dabei weiterhin durch das Bitcoin-Netzwerk gesichert bleibt, könnte das eine viel größere Menge an brachliegendem Bitcoin freisetzen als es die heutigen Wrapped-Lösungen jemals könnten.
‎
‎Das finde ich am spannendsten.
‎
‎Die Nachfrage ist bereits da.
‎
‎Jetzt geht es darum, die Infrastruktur zu bauen, die Bitcoin in DeFi einbringen kann, ohne dabei zu kompromittieren, was Bitcoin wertvoll macht.
‎
‎Für mich versucht Babylon nicht, eine Nachfrage nach Bitcoin in DeFi zu schaffen. Diese Nachfrage gibt es bereits. Es geht darum, die vertrauenslose Infrastruktur aufzubauen, die es nativem Bitcoin endlich ermöglichen könnte, diese Nachfrage zu erfüllen.
‎$BABY #baby

Die Sicherheit von Bitcoin Vaults geht nicht darum, mehr Funktionen hinzuzufügen. Es geht darum, die Notwendigkeit von Vertrauen zu entfernen. Als ich zum ersten Mal verschiedene Bitcoin-Kreditmodelle verglich, fiel mir sofort etwas auf. Die meisten Lösungen können funktionieren. Aber sie sind normalerweise auf Komitees, Bridge-Operatoren, Multisig-Signer oder andere vertrauenswürdige Parteien im Hintergrund angewiesen. @babylonlabs_io Trustless Bitcoin Vaults gehen einen anderen Weg. Sicherheit von Bitcoin Vaults Kreditnehmer erstellt ein Darlehen │ ┌────────┬────────┬────────┐ ▼ ▼ ▼ DLC BitVM TBV │ │ │ Komitee Signierer Trustless & Ops Regeln └────────┼────────┘ ▼ Kreditnehmer zieht Gelder ab │ DLC → Komitee BitVM → Signierer TBV → Trustless │ ▼ Liquidation │ DLC → Oracle BitVM → Operatoren TBV → Vault-Regeln Was ich am interessantesten finde, ist nicht, dass TBV jede externe Annahme entfernt. Durch Sicherheiten gedehntes Verleihen hängt weiterhin von einem Preisorakel ab. Die echte Innovation liegt darin, unnötiges Vertrauen zu entfernen. Anstatt die Nutzer darauf zu verpflichten, Komitees, Bridge-Operatoren oder Multisig-Gruppen zu vertrauen, lässt TBV vordefinierte kryptografische Vault-Regeln bestimmen, was mit Bitcoin passieren kann. Für mich ist das ein deutlich stärkeres Sicherheitsmodell. Denn Sicherheit sollte nicht davon abhängen, wer eine Transaktion signiert. Sie sollte davon abhängen, ob die Regeln des Protokolls erfüllt wurden. Das ist die Idee hinter Babylon Trustless Bitcoin Vaults. $BABY #baby

Die Sicherheit von Bitcoin Vaults geht nicht darum, mehr Funktionen hinzuzufügen.
Es geht darum, die Notwendigkeit von Vertrauen zu entfernen.
Als ich zum ersten Mal verschiedene Bitcoin-Kreditmodelle verglich, fiel mir sofort etwas auf.
Die meisten Lösungen können funktionieren.
Aber sie sind normalerweise auf Komitees, Bridge-Operatoren, Multisig-Signer oder andere vertrauenswürdige Parteien im Hintergrund angewiesen.
@BabylonLabs_io Trustless Bitcoin Vaults gehen einen anderen Weg.

Sicherheit von Bitcoin Vaults

Kreditnehmer erstellt ein Darlehen
│
┌────────┬────────┬────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
DLC BitVM TBV
│ │ │
Komitee Signierer Trustless
& Ops Regeln
└────────┼────────┘
▼
Kreditnehmer zieht Gelder ab
│
DLC → Komitee
BitVM → Signierer
TBV → Trustless
│
▼
Liquidation
│
DLC → Oracle
BitVM → Operatoren
TBV → Vault-Regeln

Was ich am interessantesten finde, ist nicht, dass TBV jede externe Annahme entfernt. Durch Sicherheiten gedehntes Verleihen hängt weiterhin von einem Preisorakel ab.
Die echte Innovation liegt darin, unnötiges Vertrauen zu entfernen.
Anstatt die Nutzer darauf zu verpflichten, Komitees, Bridge-Operatoren oder Multisig-Gruppen zu vertrauen, lässt TBV vordefinierte kryptografische Vault-Regeln bestimmen, was mit Bitcoin passieren kann.
Für mich ist das ein deutlich stärkeres Sicherheitsmodell.
Denn Sicherheit sollte nicht davon abhängen, wer eine Transaktion signiert.
Sie sollte davon abhängen, ob die Regeln des Protokolls erfüllt wurden.
Das ist die Idee hinter Babylon Trustless Bitcoin Vaults.
$BABY #baby

BABE: A Smarter Way to Verify Proofs on Bitcoin One of the biggest challenges in bringing advanced applications to Bitcoin has never been security its efficient verification. Previous approaches such as BitVM made trustless verification possible, but they still relied heavily on large garbled circuits and expensive dispute mechanisms. In some cases, verification could require massive on-chain data, higher capital requirements, and costly challenge transactions. BABE (@babylonlabs_io new verification protocol) introduces a different approach. Instead of depending solely on garbled circuits, BABE combines Witness Encryption (WE) with a lightweight interactive protocol to verify Groth16 zero-knowledge proofs on Bitcoin. The result is a system that reduces off-chain verification costs by more than 1,000× compared to previous Groth16 verifier implementations while maintaining the low on-chain footprint achieved by modern BitVM designs. Here's what makes BABE stand out: Witness Encryption ensures that only a valid proof can unlock the encrypted secret. • The Verifier encrypts a secret during setup without revealing private randomness. • The Prover can successfully decrypt the secret only after presenting a valid Groth16 proof. • An interactive protocol allows the Prover to compute the required cryptographic values without ever learning the Verifier private randomness, preserving both privacy and security. This architecture eliminates much of the computational overhead that has historically limited Bitcoin-native verification, making advanced cryptographic applications significantly more practical. BABE is not just another cryptographic upgrade. It's one of the technologies that can make Babylon Trustless Bitcoin Vaults more practical and scalable. Faster and cheaper proof verification strengthens the infrastructure that allows native BTC to be used as trustless collateral across lending, stablecoins, and other BTCFi applications without wrapping Bitcoin or relying on custodians. That's the direction Bitcoin DeFi has been waiting for. $BABY #baby

Verifiziert

Übersetzung ansehen

BABE: A Smarter Way to Verify Proofs on Bitcoin

One of the biggest challenges in bringing advanced applications to Bitcoin has never been security its efficient verification.

Previous approaches such as BitVM made trustless verification possible, but they still relied heavily on large garbled circuits and expensive dispute mechanisms. In some cases, verification could require massive on-chain data, higher capital requirements, and costly challenge transactions.

BABE (@BabylonLabs_io new verification protocol) introduces a different approach.

Instead of depending solely on garbled circuits, BABE combines Witness Encryption (WE) with a lightweight interactive protocol to verify Groth16 zero-knowledge proofs on Bitcoin. The result is a system that reduces off-chain verification costs by more than 1,000× compared to previous Groth16 verifier implementations while maintaining the low on-chain footprint achieved by modern BitVM designs.

Here's what makes BABE stand out:

Witness Encryption ensures that only a valid proof can unlock the encrypted secret.

• The Verifier encrypts a secret during setup without revealing private randomness.

• The Prover can successfully decrypt the secret only after presenting a valid Groth16 proof.

• An interactive protocol allows the Prover to compute the required cryptographic values without ever learning the Verifier private randomness, preserving both privacy and security.

This architecture eliminates much of the computational overhead that has historically limited Bitcoin-native verification, making advanced cryptographic applications significantly more practical.

BABE is not just another cryptographic upgrade. It's one of the technologies that can make Babylon Trustless Bitcoin Vaults more practical and scalable. Faster and cheaper proof verification strengthens the infrastructure that allows native BTC to be used as trustless collateral across lending, stablecoins, and other BTCFi applications without wrapping Bitcoin or relying on custodians. That's the direction Bitcoin DeFi has been waiting for.
$BABY #baby

BTC-1,68%