When BTC was hovering around the 63,000 mark, the group chat went quiet instead. The people calling trades disappeared. Builders started to show up. When the tide goes out, who’s swimming naked becomes obvious.
The big cake is up to 64,000, and BTC is still bullish!
Recently, I’ve spent most of my effort comparing two paths—Babylon’s TBV and Hashi on Sui. Not a trading mindset—I genuinely want to know: when the next stress test arrives, which system will be the first to have a bug.
I took the Babylon route earliest. Their logic is very pure—BTC is locked in Taproot scripts on the Bitcoin mainnet. Each Vault corresponds to an independent UTXO. No shared liquidity pool, no re-staking. You borrow stablecoins on Aave v4, relying on cryptographic proofs—not anyone’s permission. The project team can’t touch your coins, and that’s reassuring. So far, Babylon has locked over 56,000 BTC, and TVL has exceeded $5 billion. Even Aave founder Stani publicly endorsed it, saying it’s the first truly meaningful new Spoke implementation for Aave V4.
But the issue is there too—since each UTXO is independent, security is secure, but what about liquidity efficiency? It’s like locking each coin in its own separate safe: it works, but moving it around is a hassle.
Hashi takes a different route. Led by Mysten Labs, it went live on the testnet on July 22. You deposit BTC, validators use MPC with a Guardian Layer 2-of-2 multisig to guard it, and then mint hBTC on Sui that can be freely composed. Institutions like this approach—BitGo, Cumberland, Ledger, FalconX, and more than 25 partners have already joined. High performance, lots of玩法, with the goal directly targeting that 1 trillion dollars’ worth of dormant BTC.
But there’s always a hurdle in my mind—MPC plus multisig: the more steps there are, the more potential nodes where something can go wrong. It’s not technical distrust, it’s instinct.
Two approaches are on the table: one goes all-in on native-ness, the other embraces composability. There’s no absolute right or wrong—maybe in the future they’ll converge. But what I want to know is this: when the next brutal sell-off hits, BTC injects pins, and the liquidation chain is run end-to-end—will TBV’s pure cryptographic proofs be more resilient, or will Hashi’s institutional-grade risk controls be tougher to break? @BabylonLabs_io $BABY #baby
The big cake is up to 64,000, and BTC is still bullish!
Recently, I’ve spent most of my effort comparing two paths—Babylon’s TBV and Hashi on Sui. Not a trading mindset—I genuinely want to know: when the next stress test arrives, which system will be the first to have a bug.
I took the Babylon route earliest. Their logic is very pure—BTC is locked in Taproot scripts on the Bitcoin mainnet. Each Vault corresponds to an independent UTXO. No shared liquidity pool, no re-staking. You borrow stablecoins on Aave v4, relying on cryptographic proofs—not anyone’s permission. The project team can’t touch your coins, and that’s reassuring. So far, Babylon has locked over 56,000 BTC, and TVL has exceeded $5 billion. Even Aave founder Stani publicly endorsed it, saying it’s the first truly meaningful new Spoke implementation for Aave V4.
But the issue is there too—since each UTXO is independent, security is secure, but what about liquidity efficiency? It’s like locking each coin in its own separate safe: it works, but moving it around is a hassle.
Hashi takes a different route. Led by Mysten Labs, it went live on the testnet on July 22. You deposit BTC, validators use MPC with a Guardian Layer 2-of-2 multisig to guard it, and then mint hBTC on Sui that can be freely composed. Institutions like this approach—BitGo, Cumberland, Ledger, FalconX, and more than 25 partners have already joined. High performance, lots of玩法, with the goal directly targeting that 1 trillion dollars’ worth of dormant BTC.
But there’s always a hurdle in my mind—MPC plus multisig: the more steps there are, the more potential nodes where something can go wrong. It’s not technical distrust, it’s instinct.
Two approaches are on the table: one goes all-in on native-ness, the other embraces composability. There’s no absolute right or wrong—maybe in the future they’ll converge. But what I want to know is this: when the next brutal sell-off hits, BTC injects pins, and the liquidation chain is run end-to-end—will TBV’s pure cryptographic proofs be more resilient, or will Hashi’s institutional-grade risk controls be tougher to break? @BabylonLabs_io $BABY #baby
