$BABY @BabylonLabs_io Today I got stuck.
It wasn’t a workflow error—it was me. I paused on a screen.
While sorting things out for the vault.
Which one sacrifices its holdings, which one is protected, and who goes first. The system lays out the options for me and waits for my decision.
I stared at it for about twenty seconds.
Then I realized something: I don’t know how to order them, because in the past nobody has ever asked for my opinion.
On a managed platform, things like this don’t exist. The liquidation order, collateral handling, risk tiering—everything is set by the platform by default. I never needed to have an opinion.
Thaler and Sunstein wrote in *Nudge*: "Default options determine the outcome for most people, because most people never modify them."
When you read that line, it feels like it’s talking about other people.
But on this screen, it was talking about me.
TBV handed this decision back to me. This isn’t a feature—it’s a transfer of responsibility.
After I thought through that layer, I actually felt a bit grateful for the twenty-second hitch—because it made me, for the first time, really consider: if the BTC price drops quickly, which part do I want to lose first.
In a managed environment, I would never ask myself this.
But the cost is real too. Hesitating for twenty seconds means this decision is beyond my everyday experience. Most people won’t think for twenty seconds—they’ll just use the recommended configuration. And once a recommended configuration gets widely adopted, it becomes the new default option—taking self-custody in form, but the substance of custody.
This isn’t a design flaw. Any system that hands decision power back to users will run into this paradox.
So what I’m really thinking about today isn’t whether TBV is any good—it’s this: when self-custody gives you back choice, are you truly choosing… or are you just accepting another person’s prewritten default value? 👀
#baby $BABY @BabylonLabs_io
$BTC
It wasn’t a workflow error—it was me. I paused on a screen.
While sorting things out for the vault.
Which one sacrifices its holdings, which one is protected, and who goes first. The system lays out the options for me and waits for my decision.
I stared at it for about twenty seconds.
Then I realized something: I don’t know how to order them, because in the past nobody has ever asked for my opinion.
On a managed platform, things like this don’t exist. The liquidation order, collateral handling, risk tiering—everything is set by the platform by default. I never needed to have an opinion.
Thaler and Sunstein wrote in *Nudge*: "Default options determine the outcome for most people, because most people never modify them."
When you read that line, it feels like it’s talking about other people.
But on this screen, it was talking about me.
TBV handed this decision back to me. This isn’t a feature—it’s a transfer of responsibility.
After I thought through that layer, I actually felt a bit grateful for the twenty-second hitch—because it made me, for the first time, really consider: if the BTC price drops quickly, which part do I want to lose first.
In a managed environment, I would never ask myself this.
But the cost is real too. Hesitating for twenty seconds means this decision is beyond my everyday experience. Most people won’t think for twenty seconds—they’ll just use the recommended configuration. And once a recommended configuration gets widely adopted, it becomes the new default option—taking self-custody in form, but the substance of custody.
This isn’t a design flaw. Any system that hands decision power back to users will run into this paradox.
So what I’m really thinking about today isn’t whether TBV is any good—it’s this: when self-custody gives you back choice, are you truly choosing… or are you just accepting another person’s prewritten default value? 👀
#baby $BABY @BabylonLabs_io
$BTC