What I see as the easiest point where Babylon could get mixed up now is the distinction between “what $BABY can already do” and “how value might be captured in the future.”
The uses we can confirm today aren’t that complicated: the Gas, staking security, and on-chain governance of Babylon Genesis, with an annual inflation parameter of 5.5%. But things like Vault usage fees, infrastructure collateral, cross-chain deployments, and buyback-and-burn—these are still phrased as “can/could” in the official roadmap, so we can’t treat them as already live.@BabylonLabs_io
I understand the team’s thinking. If TBV later creates lending spread, premiums, or network fees on Ethereum and other chains, BABY could be brought into application chains to pay fees, participate in governance, or serve as collateral as a service provider; then, for the revenue side, buyback-and-burn can be considered later. The logic is somewhat like first building up foot traffic in a mall, and only then designing how membership points translate from rent and trading into benefits.$BTC
But the problem is right here: foot traffic doesn’t automatically mean the points are definitely worth something—there has to be hard rules in the middle.
Once TBV grows, fees might first be retained in Aave, Vault Providers, or other application layers; when BABY moves to external chains, there will be additional bridge, liquidity, and governance-synchronization issues. If there aren’t clear fee rates, collection addresses, revenue-splitting rules, buyback trigger conditions, and on-chain burn records, then product adoption can’t be directly equated to token demand.$ETH
So I think, for #baby the next phase, it won’t be only about focusing on partnership quantity. More importantly, whether governance proposals are truly executed: which fees must be bound to BABY, how revenue is divided, and whether buyback-and-burn can be verifiably confirmed on-chain.
The narrative can start by mapping the value flows, but what the market ultimately wants to see is how every unit of value moves from the product side to the token side.
The uses we can confirm today aren’t that complicated: the Gas, staking security, and on-chain governance of Babylon Genesis, with an annual inflation parameter of 5.5%. But things like Vault usage fees, infrastructure collateral, cross-chain deployments, and buyback-and-burn—these are still phrased as “can/could” in the official roadmap, so we can’t treat them as already live.@BabylonLabs_io
I understand the team’s thinking. If TBV later creates lending spread, premiums, or network fees on Ethereum and other chains, BABY could be brought into application chains to pay fees, participate in governance, or serve as collateral as a service provider; then, for the revenue side, buyback-and-burn can be considered later. The logic is somewhat like first building up foot traffic in a mall, and only then designing how membership points translate from rent and trading into benefits.$BTC
But the problem is right here: foot traffic doesn’t automatically mean the points are definitely worth something—there has to be hard rules in the middle.
Once TBV grows, fees might first be retained in Aave, Vault Providers, or other application layers; when BABY moves to external chains, there will be additional bridge, liquidity, and governance-synchronization issues. If there aren’t clear fee rates, collection addresses, revenue-splitting rules, buyback trigger conditions, and on-chain burn records, then product adoption can’t be directly equated to token demand.$ETH
So I think, for #baby the next phase, it won’t be only about focusing on partnership quantity. More importantly, whether governance proposals are truly executed: which fees must be bound to BABY, how revenue is divided, and whether buyback-and-burn can be verifiably confirmed on-chain.
The narrative can start by mapping the value flows, but what the market ultimately wants to see is how every unit of value moves from the product side to the token side.