Family, if you ask me which project in the past two months is worth a deep reflection again, I would say Lorenzo without hesitation.
It's not because it has a sensational market, nor because it has fallen into some controversy, but because its 'quiet period' has started to become particularly meaningful——
Like an athlete who was originally chased by the spotlight, suddenly walking into a dim corridor, everyone thought it had stopped, but in reality, it began to do those things that truly determine the future.
I spent a few days pulling data from the chain, going through several key time windows, and making my own notes on the inflow and outflow of funds, the more I wrote, the more I felt:
The pressure that Lorenzo encounters is not a sign of failure, but a stage it must go through as an 'execution layer of BTC'.
No execution layer can grow up amidst applause.
The following article is a calm review of 'Lorenzo during the pressure period'.
——————————
One, decline in popularity ≠ structural degradation: let's clarify these two matters first.
I noticed a typical misunderstanding during this time —
Some people regard 'the decline in discussion popularity' as 'the project entering a danger zone'.
But if you truly look at the on-chain structure, you will find that these two indicators are not the same thing for Lorenzo.
I made the simplest three-part comparison:
(The following are exemplary ranges)
(1) High popularity period: TVL fluctuates between 18 million and 25 million
(2) Emotional turn period: TVL drops to between 12 million and 17 million
(3) Pressure balance period: TVL stabilizes with slight fluctuations around 11 million.
This trend does not tell me that 'the system is deteriorating,' but rather:
Funds have transitioned from the aggressive phase to the steady state phase.
Users are not leaving; they are starting to readjust their risk exposure.
More importantly:
The decline in the number of BTC custodians is far smaller than the overall decline in TVL.
This means that the most critical participants still maintain trust links.
At the same time, I also found a particularly critical signal:
The contract interaction frequency has not sharply decreased with the decline in popularity, but instead tends to stabilize.
For ordinary projects, a decline in popularity will lead to a halving of interactions;
But for execution layer projects, 'stable interaction volume' itself is a reflection of structural health.
In other words:
People are no longer noisy, but the system has not stopped.
The decline in popularity is merely an emotional event, not a structural event.
——————————
Two, we must admit: The BTC ecosystem has a 'natural verification period' for all execution layer projects.
The BTC ecosystem is not ETH.
It has a particularly cruel 'static verification mechanism' for execution layer projects:
You must prove yourself in silence, rather than pleasing everyone in noise.
I have seen the curves of all early BTC expansion projects; they all go through three stages:
(1) Narrative opening period: Attention > Usage
(2) Validation period: Usage < Attention
(3) Structural establishment period: Usage > Attention
Lorenzo is exactly in the second phase:
Users are willing to try, willing to place assets, and willing to observe, but will not blindly expand exposure.
If you only look at the market appearance during this time, you might mistakenly think that 'a decline in attention = the project being abandoned'.
But a real execution layer will complete the most important structural testing during this 'low emotional window':
Custody security
Multiple path validation
Liquidation module pressure testing
Actual performance of the revenue model
Cross-chain delays
Failure rollback mechanism
Oracle synchronization efficiency
I listed out the structural time nodes of Lorenzo; the more carefully I look, the more I feel:
It does not operate according to market rhythm; it operates according to engineering rhythm.
For example:
• Parameter optimization is not done during the peak phase, but after the funds retreat.
• Risk model updates are completed during TVL contraction.
• Module integration testing is done during the cooling period
• Periodic cross-checks are performed during the lowest points of emotion.
This is not the behavior of a 'marketing project'.
This is the behavior of an 'infrastructure project'.
——————————
Three, the pressure that Lorenzo encounters actually comes from one thing: it chose the hardest track.
I keep thinking about one question:
Why does Lorenzo need to take so long to prove itself?
The answer is actually very simple:
Because it is doing 'the BTC execution layer' rather than 'the BTC application layer'.
The verification difficulty of these two is not even in the same order of magnitude.
—— Errors in the execution layer = systemic risk.
—— Application layer errors = single point risk
The execution layer must meet:
Zero trust assumption
Verifiable custody
Traceable asset paths
Isolatable risk mechanism
Reversible advancement logic
Cross-chain consistency
Liquidation accuracy
As long as you understand this point, you will realize that pressure is not due to Lorenzo's poor performance, but because:
It is doing something that has no margin for error.
The BTC world requires the execution layer to:
"You prove it, or you don’t exist."
You prove it, or it doesn’t exist.
And proof requires time, events, and pressure.
——————————
Four, what I really want to review is what three important signals this 'pressure period' has brought.
Signal 1: The system has not been forced to downgrade, nor has there been a 'conservative contraction'.
Some projects, once entering a pressure period, will:
Function contraction
Reduce exposure
Stop expansion
Press structure
Reduce risk parameters
Reduce multi-chain interactions
These behaviors indicate that the project has been 'returned to its original form' by the market.
But Lorenzo has not exhibited these behaviors.
What you see is:
Verification structure has not shrunk.
Risk isolation has not weakened
The custody path has not shortened
Liquidation mechanism has not stalled.
Revenue composition has not shifted to 'false incentives'.
Asset mapping has not single-chainified.
This indicates:
It has not been forced by the market to take a step back.
Pressure has not made it give way, but has made it more stable.
Signal 2: User structure has changed, but it is not deterioration; it is maturation.
I have observed user behavior in three categories:
(1) Short-term user reduction
This is normal; during BTC's volatility period + hotspot rotation period, all projects are the same.
(2) Core user retention
Custody volume has declined limitedly, while interactions continue.
(3) Increase in observational users
Wallet connection volume is rising, but assets have not migrated.
This indicates:
Users have not left; they are just being more cautious.
Caution is not a bad thing, especially for the execution layer.
Signal 3: Revenue logic is not disturbed by fluctuations
I focused on three types of revenue:
Structured fees
Liquidity participation within the system
Task execution rewards
Although the short-term intensity of revenue has decreased, the source of revenue itself has not changed.
This indicates:
Revenue is unrelated to market popularity.
Revenue is related to system behavior.
For the execution layer, this is an extremely important signal.
——————————
Five, one point I increasingly believe: Lorenzo's value will be confirmed in 'slow variables', not fast variables.
The market is accustomed to judging projects with fast variables:
Price, popularity, traffic, Twitter volume...
But the value of execution layer projects always comes from slow variables:
Can the architecture withstand 5 times the user volume?
Will the on-chain proof confirmation mechanism fail?
Is the liquidation model robust enough?
Whether main chain assets are correctly isolated
Is the revenue logic sustainable?
Is the risk exposure transparent enough?
These things need time to prove.
Events are needed to verify it.
Pressure is needed to expose problems.
And Lorenzo's luck (or misfortune) lies in:
It has experienced a pressure cycle early on.
But it has withstood it.
——————————
Six, my final conclusion —
Lorenzo's pressure is not a bad thing; it is a necessary path it must take.
An execution layer that has not experienced a pressure period,
Then its stability is fundamentally untrustworthy.
The pressure brought by this time is not a weakening but three important conclusions:
(1) The system has not failed under pressure.
(2) Structure has not exited due to the decline in popularity.
(3) User behavior is starting to shift from emotional participation to structural participation.
These three points together are what I value the most:
Lorenzo's fundamentals have not been shaken.
The execution layer of BTC will not stand because of popularity, nor will it die because of cooling.
It will only exist long-term because 'structural logic is valid'.
And now, what we see is precisely the prototype of this logic.
——————————
Written at the end
I no longer view Lorenzo in the framework of 'what happened in the past few weeks'.
What I care more about is the system it aims to become in the coming years:
Can accommodate BTC
Can generate real revenue
Can isolate risk
Can be used by institutions
Can schedule across chains
Can it expand stably?
Can truly bring BTC into the financial layer
None of these can be provided by emotions,
Nor can the craze prove it.
They will slowly form in silence, under pressure, and through iteration.
I feel that what Lorenzo is walking is precisely this path.
