#baby $BABY The first typhoon of the year is here. Right now it’s raining heavily outside my window. I originally planned to go for a run today, but I’ll have to wait. The moment that’s easiest to chase the wrong $BABY might be when the BTC collateral amount in Aave suddenly skyrockets. I’m not trying to scare you.
This business starts on Ethereum: users pay ETH for Gas, the borrowing interest flows into the Aave system, and the liquidation profits also go first to the liquidators. Babylon provides the most crucial BTC-collateral technology, but it won’t automatically allocate a share of every single income stream to itself.
After Babylon chooses the Vault-first route and we re-calculate the numbers: the official plan is for TBV to enter mature DeFi ecosystems like Ethereum first. I think it’s smart—Babylon doesn’t need to build liquidity pools from scratch. Instead, it borrows the existing users, stablecoins, and liquidity directly, turning native BTC into borrowable collateral faster.
So it’s easier to scale the product. But to make that scale reflect in the BABY price, I believe it still has to pass through three fee tollgates in sequence.
The first tollgate is fees. When users open a Vault, borrow, or redeem, the contract must automatically reserve a Babylon fee. If the fee rules can be bypassed by partners, then no matter how large the BTC collateral amount is, Babylon would just be giving away business to external protocols for free.
After the fee is collected, it has to pass the second tollgate: the money must go into an on-chain contract controlled by Babylon. BTC collateral and Aave borrowing amounts are “business data.” Only the actual BTC or other assets that have landed on-chain count as Babylon’s own revenue.
The third and most critical: can this revenue automatically buy or destroy BABY? The Babylon Foundation has already proposed a scheme to use external incentive auctions to bid for BABY and then destroy it. But for now, it still falls under governance and product design, so it can’t be counted into cash flow in advance.
Overall, I like this route. Genesis doesn’t need to squeeze into ordinary users to become the control layer for BTC collateral. As long as every time an external DeFi protocol uses a Babylon Vault, it must leave a fee behind, low Gas can still produce high revenue.
But right now, its fee collection, revenue aggregation, and BABY return haven’t yet been connected into a single end-to-end, auditable flow. So what I’m truly waiting for isn’t just TBV data suddenly taking off. Once the fee contract goes live, BTC fees start getting aggregated, and BABY appears with verifiable automatic buys or burns—after these three steps, control will truly become fee ownership. Are we going to rush in, or are we waiting? What’s the basis? Let’s talk.
@BabylonLabs_io
This business starts on Ethereum: users pay ETH for Gas, the borrowing interest flows into the Aave system, and the liquidation profits also go first to the liquidators. Babylon provides the most crucial BTC-collateral technology, but it won’t automatically allocate a share of every single income stream to itself.
After Babylon chooses the Vault-first route and we re-calculate the numbers: the official plan is for TBV to enter mature DeFi ecosystems like Ethereum first. I think it’s smart—Babylon doesn’t need to build liquidity pools from scratch. Instead, it borrows the existing users, stablecoins, and liquidity directly, turning native BTC into borrowable collateral faster.
So it’s easier to scale the product. But to make that scale reflect in the BABY price, I believe it still has to pass through three fee tollgates in sequence.
The first tollgate is fees. When users open a Vault, borrow, or redeem, the contract must automatically reserve a Babylon fee. If the fee rules can be bypassed by partners, then no matter how large the BTC collateral amount is, Babylon would just be giving away business to external protocols for free.
After the fee is collected, it has to pass the second tollgate: the money must go into an on-chain contract controlled by Babylon. BTC collateral and Aave borrowing amounts are “business data.” Only the actual BTC or other assets that have landed on-chain count as Babylon’s own revenue.
The third and most critical: can this revenue automatically buy or destroy BABY? The Babylon Foundation has already proposed a scheme to use external incentive auctions to bid for BABY and then destroy it. But for now, it still falls under governance and product design, so it can’t be counted into cash flow in advance.
Overall, I like this route. Genesis doesn’t need to squeeze into ordinary users to become the control layer for BTC collateral. As long as every time an external DeFi protocol uses a Babylon Vault, it must leave a fee behind, low Gas can still produce high revenue.
But right now, its fee collection, revenue aggregation, and BABY return haven’t yet been connected into a single end-to-end, auditable flow. So what I’m truly waiting for isn’t just TBV data suddenly taking off. Once the fee contract goes live, BTC fees start getting aggregated, and BABY appears with verifiable automatic buys or burns—after these three steps, control will truly become fee ownership. Are we going to rush in, or are we waiting? What’s the basis? Let’s talk.
@BabylonLabs_io