shareyourvote

Every vault in Trustless Bitcoin Vaults (TBV) Sets Aside around $93 worth of BTC as a challenge bond. Most people will never see that money go anywhere it just sits there and comes back when the vault closes.
@BabylonLabs_io $BABY
So whats the point of it then.

The point is that challenges have to actually cost something for the system to work. If disputing a claim was free, People could spam fake Challenges all day just to mess with others. And if lying was free on the other side, nobody would have a reason to stay honest either.

Its basically the Same logic as a refundable deposit you put down before renting equipment. You almost never lose it, but the fact that you could is exactly what keeps things fair for everyone involved.
#ShareYourVote
$KOMA $BANK
#baby

Not totally sure What to Make of this one BABYs annual inflation got cut from 8% to 5.5% back in November at the Saame UPgrade That introduced BTC BABY CO Staking (20,000 BABY per 1 BTC for extra rewards). Same upgrade two changes.

Is the inflation cut meant to offset new BABY demand from CoStaking, or are these actually unrelated changes that just landed together? And does any of this coNnect to how Trustless Bitcoin Vaults (TBV) fees eventually route into BABY burns or is that a completely separate track?

Trying to figure out if Theres one coordinated tokenomics Story Here or Just two governance Proposals that happened to ship at the same time.
$KOMA $BANK
#ShareYourVote
@BabylonLabs_io $BABY #baby

Went looking through the talking points for the full list of things Trustless Bitcoin Vaults (TBV) is supposed to support and two of them stopped me credit cards and insurance.

Lending stablecoins perps all three get actual design sections in the whitepaper. Architecture workflows Benefits all spelled out Credit cards and insurance show up in the list of Applications native BTC collateral could power but neither one gets anything close to that Treatment anywhere in the technical Material.

Compared to the three designed use cases, that's a real Gap not just less detail. A credit card product needs things lending doesnt instant authorization meerchant settlement timing, chargeback haAndling. None of that shows up in any section I have read.

Not saying it cant work eventually. The underlying vault prImitive is general enough that it probably could the same way it stretches across lending, stablecoins, and perps already.

Just noting that CRedit cards and insurance" right now reads more like a category the team believes is reachable than a product with any published mechanics behind it.
$BANK $KOMA
#ShareYourVote
@BabylonLabs_io $BABY #baby

The Trustless Bitcoin Vaults (TBV) whitepaper does something worth calling out in Section 5 it lists Open Participation as a stated benefit and specifies whitelisted liquidators as the actual mechanism in the same section.@BabylonLabs_io

The benefit bullet is explicit about who open participation covers liquidators borrowers and developers all supposed to plug into the protocol with minimal onboarding. The liquidation flow a few paragraphs earlier is equally explicit liquidations get executed by whitelisted liquidators a defined permissioned set not anyone who wants to close an undercollateralized position.$BABY

Not saying whitelisting liquidators is unreasonable Liquidation means holding and moving real capital fast and vetting participants for that role is standard practice across lending protocols onchain or off.

Not saying the two claims sit comfortably together either The benefit names liquidators as open participants The mechanism gates them. Both can't be fully true at once open is carrying more weight in that bullet than the whitelist backs up. #baby

There may be a resolution if the whitelist itself is easy to join the k-of-n co-signing sets anyone can enter then minimal onboarding and whitelisted could be the same thing seen from two angles. But the whitepaper never says how a liquidator actually gets whitelisted.

So can anyone become a liquidator or does open participation end at the whitelist? Section 5 names the benefit and the gate on the same page and never connects the two.

$UAI $BANK
#ShareYourOpinion
#ShareYourVote

Mapped the structured Selling program from the June 2025 report because it has more distinct components than insiders sell on a schedule suggests seven separate MeChanisms working together.

Pre Adoption Certification a Plan can only be adopted when the individual holds no material non Public information at that moment.

Cooling Off Period sales cant begin immediately after plan adoption a mandatory delay limits any residual Information advantage. Sale Frequency Limits only periodic preScheduled sales no discretionary timing. Sale Caps volumealigned limits on how much can be sold per scheduled sale.

Eligibility Restrictions only fUlly vested unlocked tokens qualify locked or unvested tokens are excluded entirely. Execution Requirements sales must go through an independent third party via approved exchanges or OTC deSks not self directed Suspension Clause the plan administrator can pause active plans during major protocol events governance votes upgrades security incidents to prevent misaligned timing.

Seven distinct controls each cl0sing a different potential gap.
Pre Adoption Certification and Cooling Off address information asymmetry at the moment of coMmitment. Sale Frequency and Sale Caps address discretionary timing and volume manipulation.

I actually think this is a genuinely comprehensive structure modeled explicitly on 10b5 1 trading plans used in traditional public company insider trading compliance adapted for token allocations. Each of the seven components targets a specific way insider selling could otherwise create unfair information advantages or market impact.

What I have NOT worked out is whether this structured selling program has actually been used yet whether any Core Contributors Early Backers or Foundation leadership have executed sales under this program since the 12 month cliff period would have started or whether the program remains untested in practice since vesting only recently would have begun unlocking tokens.
$LAB $EVAA
#ShareYourVote
@NewtonProtocol $NEWT #Newt

Read the Q4 2025 reports oracle integration list twice because something did N0t add up on my first pass. Newton now has two separate KYC oriented identity oracles Persona and Veriff and I do assumed a protocol would settle on one.

Persona was announced in Q1 2026. Veriff appears in the Q4 2025 report, meaning it actually predates Persona by roughly a quarter. That ordering matters Veriff is N0t a redundant addition after Persona already existed. Persona came second.

So why maintain two identity verification oracles doing similar work.

The report frames Newtons oracle model as a neutral policy layer across heterogeneous systems rather than endorsements of any specific application the same disclaimer language covered in earlier analysis of the illustrative not endorsement Framing.

Read against that framing Having two KYC providers is Not redundancy its optioNality. A policy author building a compliance stack chooses which identity verification vendor fits their existing relationships or regulatory requirements Veriff for one jurisdiction's documentation standards Persona for an0thers or either depending on which vendor a specific institution already has a contract with.

I actually think this reframes what Newton integrates with X announcements should be read as collectively not individually the pattern is NOt Newton picked the best KYC vendor. Its Newton is building a menu and policy authors pick from it based on their own existing vendor relationships and jurisdictional needs.

What I have not worked out is whether Persona and Veriff data can be composed within a single policy requiring agreement between both, or accepting either or whether a policy author has to pick exactly one identity oracle per policy and can't reference both simultaneously.

Why do you think Newton integrates both Persona and Veriff?
#ShareYourVote #VoteYourOpinion $DODO $XEC
@NewtonProtocol $NEWT #Newt

NewtonPermissions is a name I had N0t seen before this week. Its what Newton called reusable policies in the Q3 2025 report before the current terminology settled.

The framing is specific reusable policies that application owners define enforce and prove before settlement. That the same core mechanic covered extensively in prior analysis under the name policy packs and Rego policies. Different name same underlying concept at an earlier point in the documentations evolution.

Worth noting what didnt change alongside the name.

The three core entities Applications Operators Data Providers are the same three roles that exist in current documentation just described slightly differently. Applications define policies and request evaluations. Operators evaluate whether intents comply. Data Providers supply the onchain and offchain inputs. That structure held constant across the naming shift.

Not saying a naming change matters much on its own. Terminology evolves as documentation gets refined and as a project moves from internal working names toward publicfacing product language.

Not saying its completely irrelevant either. Anyone reading Newtons earlier disclosures alongside current documentation needs to know NewtonPermissions and current policies refer to the same mechanism otherwise the historical documents read as describing a different unrelated feature.

What I havenot worked out is when exactly the terminology shifted from NewtonPermissions to the current naming or whether any functional changes accompanied the rename beyond the label itself.
$EVAA $LAB
#ShareYourVote
@NewtonProtocol $NEWT #Newt