I talked with a few BTCFi creators who are often active in the plaza, and found that the community’s expectations for @BabylonLabs_io and $BABY have already begun to split severely. That’s the main thing that keeps me up at night. One group of early, hardcore tech researchers is still insisting that this is the “only carrier of the BTC-native cryptography revolution.” What they care about is iteration on EOTS and self-custodied UTXO scripts, and they are completely immune to outside voices. Another, more pragmatic group of holders treats BABY as an all-in-one Lido + EigenLayer for the BTC ecosystem, judging it with the simplest logic: “lock up to earn yield.”
Disagreements often create opportunities, but they also carry the danger of expectation gaps. If, in later AMAs, the team starts emphasizing more about partners and TGE details and neglects those core technical loyalists; or, conversely, if they only publish long technical posts and ignore feedback from retail holders’ experience, either bias will cause another part of the holders to leave decisively. I noticed that during this period, the official side has given a more explicit explanation of the token’s real utility, as if they intend to slow down the pace. This can be understood as not wanting to overpromise, but it may also be interpreted as they haven’t figured out the full feedback loop yet. $BTC
A community rift usually doesn’t come from outside FUD accounts—it comes from internal clashes of different expectations. Once the Bitcoin price enters a sideways consolidation phase, and BABY lacks independent bullish narrative drivers, this disagreement can quickly feed back into the coin’s price. Who should I watch? I’m watching a few more rational technical V-IPs, to see when they start calling out “it’s not meeting expectations.” That’s when the real stress test begins. #baby @BabylonLabs_io $BABY