Every Babylon pitch leads with "trustless Bitcoin staking," but when a staker wants their BTC back, the unbonding transaction still needs a signature from the Covenant Committee, pre-signed back when they first delegated. So the exit path runs on a promise made in advance, not cryptography enforcing itself live.

That's functionally close to a multisig custodian, just in different language. Bitcoin lacks native opcodes like OP-CAT or OP-CTV, so Babylon emulates covenants through this committee instead of enforcing them on-chain. Almost nobody tracks who sits on it or what happens if members collude or go dark, everyone's too busy watching finality provider uptime instead.

The honest weakness: this is a real engineering tradeoff, not a scam, and every Bitcoin bridge faces it until Bitcoin's scripting evolves. But calling it trustless while a committee pre-signs your exit is a gap the market hasn't priced in.
"Trustless staking that still needs someone else's signature to let you leave isn't trustless, it's just trust with better branding."

@BabylonLabs_io #baby $BABY $BLESS $STAR
Is BABY's unbonding truly trustless?