A junior colleague of mine working on a small Layer 1 project asked me: “If we want to integrate Babylon to outsource security, what price do we have to pay?”
I didn’t know how to answer, because when I tried to look around, I couldn’t find any clear pricing table.
This is the point I found strange about @BabylonLabs_io .
Most infrastructure services—cloud, CDN, banking—have pricing that’s tied to the level of usage or the level of risk the customer brings.
But the Babylon-based security leasing mechanism seems not to distinguish clearly: whether it’s a big chain or a small one, high risk or low risk, they all access the same kind of security asset—BTC through a finality provider—in a way that’s almost identical.
Technical point: if there’s no risk-based pricing mechanism, a high-risk but low-cap chain can still access a similar amount of security as a stable chain, as long as it attracts enough finality providers to participate.
In the long run, if there’s no pricing differentiation by risk, the incentive for BSNs to improve their operational quality could weaken, because security would not rise or fall based on their behavior.
Counterargument: building a true risk-based pricing model is really complicated—it requires historical data long enough to properly assess the risk level of each chain, and the current BSN ecosystem is still too new to have that kind of data.
Expecting a highly sophisticated pricing system from the very beginning might be beyond the scope of the current stage of development.
$BABY and the incentive mechanism are still relatively uniform for every BSN, not tiered by risk.
I’m wondering whether anyone in the Babylon ecosystem has started proposing such a dynamic pricing model, or whether everyone is still waiting for enough
#baby $DEXE
I didn’t know how to answer, because when I tried to look around, I couldn’t find any clear pricing table.
This is the point I found strange about @BabylonLabs_io .
Most infrastructure services—cloud, CDN, banking—have pricing that’s tied to the level of usage or the level of risk the customer brings.
But the Babylon-based security leasing mechanism seems not to distinguish clearly: whether it’s a big chain or a small one, high risk or low risk, they all access the same kind of security asset—BTC through a finality provider—in a way that’s almost identical.
Technical point: if there’s no risk-based pricing mechanism, a high-risk but low-cap chain can still access a similar amount of security as a stable chain, as long as it attracts enough finality providers to participate.
In the long run, if there’s no pricing differentiation by risk, the incentive for BSNs to improve their operational quality could weaken, because security would not rise or fall based on their behavior.
Counterargument: building a true risk-based pricing model is really complicated—it requires historical data long enough to properly assess the risk level of each chain, and the current BSN ecosystem is still too new to have that kind of data.
Expecting a highly sophisticated pricing system from the very beginning might be beyond the scope of the current stage of development.
$BABY and the incentive mechanism are still relatively uniform for every BSN, not tiered by risk.
I’m wondering whether anyone in the Babylon ecosystem has started proposing such a dynamic pricing model, or whether everyone is still waiting for enough
#baby $DEXE