#baby $BABY
While reorganizing my wallet addresses recently, I noticed an interesting phenomenon: although many people have held BTC for years, the proportion of those who truly engage with on-chain applications remains very low.
It’s not that they don’t believe in the returns. Rather, most BTC holders have a bottom line: coins can generate value, but they must not leave the boundaries of their own control.
That got me thinking about the Bitcoin Staking design by @BabylonLabs_io . I realized that what it truly challenges is not “how to make BTC earn yield,” but how to change the way BTC participates in other networks.
Traditional PoS staking has a default assumption: assets need to move into the target network, where the target network determines the staking status and reward allocation.
But BTC is different.
A large portion of Bitcoin’s value comes from its long-term, stable rules. If, in order to participate in other ecosystems, BTC has to be transferred out, then you effectively introduce a new layer of trust.
Babylon adopts the concept of Remote Staking. In essence, it resolves this contradiction: BTC still remains under Bitcoin’s control logic, but the security value it generates can be used by other networks.
At first, I wondered: is Babylon sacrificing some efficiency for security?
Later I realized that Babylon cares about something else entirely: the most precious asset of BTC is not just its price, but the credibility that has been built over decades.
If a solution requires users to give up that credibility in order to obtain yield, then ultimately it will only attract capital with a higher risk appetite.
What Babylon wants to do is the opposite—enable even the most conservative BTC holders to participate in the security market.
This could change an important rule of BTCFi. In the future, Bitcoin’s participation in on-chain economics may not require copying the staking mechanisms of other chains; instead, it could form its own BTC-native security output pattern.
What I’m more focused on now is not how much BTC goes into staking, but how many networks in the future are willing to treat Bitcoin security as infrastructure—not just a simple source of liquidity.
If more and more applications start buying the “security capabilities provided by Bitcoin,” then BTC’s role may undergo a new kind of transformation.
#baby $BABY
While reorganizing my wallet addresses recently, I noticed an interesting phenomenon: although many people have held BTC for years, the proportion of those who truly engage with on-chain applications remains very low.
It’s not that they don’t believe in the returns. Rather, most BTC holders have a bottom line: coins can generate value, but they must not leave the boundaries of their own control.
That got me thinking about the Bitcoin Staking design by @BabylonLabs_io . I realized that what it truly challenges is not “how to make BTC earn yield,” but how to change the way BTC participates in other networks.
Traditional PoS staking has a default assumption: assets need to move into the target network, where the target network determines the staking status and reward allocation.
But BTC is different.
A large portion of Bitcoin’s value comes from its long-term, stable rules. If, in order to participate in other ecosystems, BTC has to be transferred out, then you effectively introduce a new layer of trust.
Babylon adopts the concept of Remote Staking. In essence, it resolves this contradiction: BTC still remains under Bitcoin’s control logic, but the security value it generates can be used by other networks.
At first, I wondered: is Babylon sacrificing some efficiency for security?
Later I realized that Babylon cares about something else entirely: the most precious asset of BTC is not just its price, but the credibility that has been built over decades.
If a solution requires users to give up that credibility in order to obtain yield, then ultimately it will only attract capital with a higher risk appetite.
What Babylon wants to do is the opposite—enable even the most conservative BTC holders to participate in the security market.
This could change an important rule of BTCFi. In the future, Bitcoin’s participation in on-chain economics may not require copying the staking mechanisms of other chains; instead, it could form its own BTC-native security output pattern.
What I’m more focused on now is not how much BTC goes into staking, but how many networks in the future are willing to treat Bitcoin security as infrastructure—not just a simple source of liquidity.
If more and more applications start buying the “security capabilities provided by Bitcoin,” then BTC’s role may undergo a new kind of transformation.
#baby $BABY
