#baby $BABY
I used to think BitVM3 was just a cheaper version of BitVM, another optimization on assert and disprove transaction sizes. Watching how it gets used in trustless Bitcoin vaults changed that assumption.
The real shift isn't cost. It's sequencing. Pre-signed transactions mean exit conditions exist before the deposit does. Every liquidation path and custody reassignment gets locked in as a signature before a single satoshi moves. Users aren't trusting an operator's future promise, they're trusting a transaction that already exists and simply hasn't been broadcast yet.
This points to a bigger problem in Bitcoin infrastructure: capital sitting idle because trust assumptions are too weak to put it to work elsewhere. Verification gets cheaper, but the underlying question, how much certainty is worth how much delay, doesn't go away just because the circuit got smaller.
Babylon approaches this from a different angle. Instead of folding verification into a single off-chain circuit, it lets Bitcoin holders stake natively while keeping custody logic anchored in Bitcoin's own timelocks and slashing conditions. Security becomes something Bitcoin exports to Proof-of-Stake chains, similar to a foundation supporting more than one building, without needing a wrapped or bridged asset in between.
What still bothers me is the same issue BitVM3 runs into. Precision and patience seem to trade against each other. Tighter security guarantees tend to mean longer timelocks, and long timelocks test how much idle time capital is actually willing to accept.
Is trustless custody the hard problem, or is it capital's patience for waiting on that trust?
@BabylonLabs_io $BABY #BABY
I used to think BitVM3 was just a cheaper version of BitVM, another optimization on assert and disprove transaction sizes. Watching how it gets used in trustless Bitcoin vaults changed that assumption.
The real shift isn't cost. It's sequencing. Pre-signed transactions mean exit conditions exist before the deposit does. Every liquidation path and custody reassignment gets locked in as a signature before a single satoshi moves. Users aren't trusting an operator's future promise, they're trusting a transaction that already exists and simply hasn't been broadcast yet.
This points to a bigger problem in Bitcoin infrastructure: capital sitting idle because trust assumptions are too weak to put it to work elsewhere. Verification gets cheaper, but the underlying question, how much certainty is worth how much delay, doesn't go away just because the circuit got smaller.
Babylon approaches this from a different angle. Instead of folding verification into a single off-chain circuit, it lets Bitcoin holders stake natively while keeping custody logic anchored in Bitcoin's own timelocks and slashing conditions. Security becomes something Bitcoin exports to Proof-of-Stake chains, similar to a foundation supporting more than one building, without needing a wrapped or bridged asset in between.
What still bothers me is the same issue BitVM3 runs into. Precision and patience seem to trade against each other. Tighter security guarantees tend to mean longer timelocks, and long timelocks test how much idle time capital is actually willing to accept.
Is trustless custody the hard problem, or is it capital's patience for waiting on that trust?
@BabylonLabs_io $BABY #BABY