AH啊豪

Money-saving details are here!!
Time flies so fast!
Before you know it, Binance is already celebrating its 9th anniversary!
Binance Wallet also has over 400 brothers who have used Hao’s referral code. Now the wallet has been upgraded to 80%. I also changed the highest market compliance standard to 30% for the brothers as soon as possible. After the update, if the platform allows entering a higher percentage, I will change it immediately!
Steps:
1️⃣ Enter the Web3 Wallet
2️⃣ Click Invite Friends
3️⃣ Click Participate Now
4️⃣ Fill in: AH999
5️⃣ Confirm to finish ✅
#币安九周年

When I was re-examining the technical architecture diagram of @BabylonLabs_io yesterday, my attention kept staying on the role of the Finality Provider (FP). I kept pondering: in a system that claims to be trustless, what exactly are the logical boundaries for the existence of the FP?

At present, most BTC scaling or functionality-focused proposals, to put it bluntly, rely on some kind of relay or witness to stay alive. Whether it’s a multisig wallet or a complex cross-chain bridge, in essence, it still depends on a small number of roles coming forward to prove that what happens in the outside world is real. Users may appear to get more “options,” but at the same time they also quietly accept an additional layer of human-based trust relationship—most people just don’t realize how fragile that trust is.

What I noticed about Babylon’s Finality Provider is that it doesn’t rush to have these roles manage users’ assets. Instead, it gives them a different way to operate: they don’t touch private keys; they only deal with BTC finality. The FP needs to lock native BTC, then use the locked assets to generate finality signatures for the PoS chains served by Babylon. In this process, the FP earns token incentives paid by the BTC stakers. It is no longer an asset custodian, but a credit intermediary.

When looking at the FP role, the thing I care about even more is this: what does the vote cast by the FP actually represent? In traditional intermediaries, the vote is essentially my persona being backed as assurance. In TBV, what the FP votes for is my own willingness for my assets to be slashed. The external PoS chains don’t need to trust the moral standing of these FPs; they only need to verify through light nodes that there are enough FPs that—using the BTC they locked—have performed multi-signature voting. This is a set of states that can be verified, entirely based on economic incentives.

Of course, I think if the FP role really needs to guarantee network-wide finality confirmation within 1 second, then node hardware, bandwidth costs, and fault-tolerance capabilities still have to be validated by the market. But the question it raises is worth keeping a long-term watch on: when BTC participates in on-chain finance, can we both improve efficiency by leveraging an intermediary role like FP and, at the same time, prevent these intermediaries from regaining actual control over assets—so that trust always remains verifiable? #baby $BABY

Lost that many times,
finally managed to steal the rankings once!
So rare!!
#比特币守稳6.54万美元科技七雄市值缩水7970亿美元

Last night, I chatted with a few friends who work in infrastructure about Babylon’s fee structure, and it suddenly hit me: everyone is scrambling to apply for BABY, but maybe nobody has really thought through its value-capture path.
Everyone thinks it’s the leader of BTC L2s, so the token must be valuable. The previous narrative was that Babylon is a chain—since it’s a chain, issuing tokens is only natural. Users performing actions need to pay BABY as gas. Technically, it forms a neat closed loop, and it sounds very reasonable. @BabylonLabs_io

But what I found is that the real problem is that Babylon’s core business is Bitcoin timestamping and finality verification, and its gas fees are not paid with BABY at all—or, to be precise, BABY’s role in it is extremely awkward.
The whitepaper states very clearly that when BTC stakers lock up BTC, they pay the native BTC network fees, about 2.66 BTC.
And when a PoS chain purchases security services, it also pays with BTC or with the PoS chain’s native token.
This creates an extremely absurd technical paradox: a mainnet that claims to serve the entire ecosystem, yet its most core commercial activity somehow doesn’t need to use its own native token as the settlement medium.

This means that for the institutions and chains that truly use Babylon’s services, BABY is optional. Even more awkwardly, if BABY is only used for governance or as an incentive for secondary validators, its inflation pressure will be enormous, while the application-layer demand is extremely small.
I worked it out for a long time, and aside from forcibly requiring FPs to stake a certain amount of BABY to get the BTC delegation qualification (hybrid staking), I couldn’t find any other strongly correlated value-capture point.
But even with hybrid staking, the FP’s demand for BABY is a one-time thing and can’t support long-term buy pressure.

My current view is: BABY’s token narrative currently relies heavily on conceptual speculation rather than capturing business value. It’s more like an exit strategy fee ticket that VC is forcing onto a very impressive technology. If you’re hoarding BABY because you’re betting on the so-called #1 in the BTC ecosystem, you need to think carefully— in a system where all business uses BTC for settlement, how much value can a purely governance token retain after the tide goes out.
After all, valuations propped up by technical excellence still ultimately need to be sustained by real token consumption— even if the actual business demand is only 0.1 BTC.
#baby $BABY

Binance Creator Center is feeding us again!
This time they’ve brought a brand-new model—
make sure to check the message list to see if there are any invited posts.
Write one and you’ll get guaranteed basic support, plus up to $200 for top rankings!
Unfortunately, I don’t know what the invitation mechanism is,
so I can only participate in the regular one!

I also hurriedly reviewed the relevant knowledge for #baby ,
and right away I noticed BABY’s native Bitcoin staking & lending on the Public Testnet.
Honestly, I’ve been pretty conflicted about Bitcoin DeFi.
I wanted to put BTC to earn interest, but I didn’t want to go through the whole wrapped cross-chain setup.
After all, I’ve seen too many bridge-related news.
For that small return, it just feels like you’re constantly fussing with the big bag, and I can’t shake the feeling of being uneasy.

But when I looked closely at the approach for Trustless Bitcoin Vaults created by $BABY , it’s a bit different.
The big bag just stays locked on the Bitcoin network, and your custody rights remain entirely in your hands.
Then on Aave v4, your collateral position is identified via a bookkeeping unit called vaultBTC.
Mainly, it can’t just be transferred around for transactions—it’s only for internal accounting.@BabylonLabs_io

In simple terms:
BTC remains under your name, but you can borrow against it on Aave.
No wrapping, no cross-chain bridge, no handing it to a third-party custodian.
So I’m genuinely very interested in what this feature can do.
If I had a few big bags, I would definitely try staking!

The Wallet’s Q4 Trading Competition is here!
If you haven’t filled in your invitation code for your wallet yet, come take a look!
We’ve been upgraded to the platform’s highest level!
Everyone is welcome to talk!

Even if you use it less, you can still fill it in—haul’s version!
Auto returns 30%!

Steps:
1️⃣ Enter the Web3 wallet
2️⃣ Click Invite Friends
3️⃣ Click Join Now
4️⃣ Fill in: AH999
5️⃣ Confirm completion ✅
#比特币触及66500美元一个月高点

Whether you use a wallet or not,
you definitely need to know the money-saving details!
Now the Hao Wallet has been upgraded to the highest level. If you haven’t filled in the invitation code yet, you can enter: AH999
The market-compliant return can be up to 30%, and it’s automatically returned. When you fill it in, you can also see it yourself!

Go into the wallet ➡️ Find Invite Friends on the home page ➡️ Enter AH999 ➡️ Save 30% in handling fees

Thanks to the 400+ brothers who support us!
No matter whether you use it or not, filling it in is never a loss!
If you don’t know the steps, you can check the pictures!
#美国连续第九夜空袭伊朗
#2026足球风潮

Kept watching that $TRADOOR bull for a long time, and it looks like it’s about to start again!
From this chart, it feels like it could jump a few times again. This time, we’re moving it straight to a cold wallet—hold on!!
#山寨爆发

Alpha is also getting better!
Every week there’s an airdrop,
whether you can get one or not depends on luck!
Save your points—those with full scores on the empty grind are blessed!
The TGE we said would happen on the 21st has been confirmed for the 30th!
My guess is that the market may drop significantly in the next few days—maybe around the 30th, after the Fed confirms this month’s interest rate will stay unchanged, we’ll get a good boost right when it launches!
#亚洲股市连续第二日下跌
#以太坊跌幅两倍于比特币

The Grvt mission for Booster has finally been fully verified!
Waiting for the rollout to award the prizes!

Binance Wallet has already been upgraded to 80%.
If you want to participate in the wallet trading competition, you can DM me!
It’s now adjusted to the highest level within market compliance.
Automatic 30%!
System automatically returns 30%!
If you haven’t filled it in yet, you can fill in: AH999
Fully automatic payout—if it doesn’t work, you can check the image!
There are already 400+ people supporting it.
Whether you use the wallet or not, the details must be in place!
#币安钱包

Newton mainnet Beta launched on the 23rd last month, and they simultaneously pushed the VaultKit SDK. RedStone plugged verified price data into Newton’s strategy execution layer, while Credora performed risk assessments. Before trading settlement, developers can add an extra layer of strategy checks—spending limits, collateral requirements, counterparty checks—all hard-coded in code. Running on an EigenLayer AVS, it uses Ethereum’s security model to verify off-chain computation. Done by Magic Labs, with cumulative fundraising of about $90 million; both PayPal Ventures and Polygon are involved. The direction is definitely right—what on-chain trading lacks is exactly this kind of “check first, then allow” mechanism.

But there are a few things that make me uneasy.

First, token supply pressure is significant. The total supply of NEWT is 1 billion; currently about 264 million are in circulation. On June 24th, 139 million tokens were unlocked, accounting for 37.22% of circulating supply, worth roughly $7.6 million. The market cap has fallen more than 90% from its peak. Yes, they raised $90 million—but institutional endorsement is never a protective charm.

Second, TEE isn’t as solid as you might think. The whitepaper packages TEE as hardware-level isolation, and combined with ZKP it sounds like a perfect setup. But there’s an exact line—“trust the chip is still trust, just wearing a different hat.” Whether it’s a trusted chip or a trusted project team, the essence is outsourcing trust to something you can’t control. In 2025, attacks targeting Intel and AMD TEE have already appeared. TEE hardware is not unbreakable.

Third, the audit status is empty. CertiK’s security score is only 50. In OGAudit’s overall score, the security dimension is just 25.57 out of 100. For a project positioning itself as “institution-grade compliance infrastructure,” that audit gap doesn’t make sense.

Fourth, ecosystem adoption is still in the early stage. Adoption issues at the infrastructure layer are very real—no matter how perfect the technology is, long-term success depends on whether developers integrate the protocol, whether institutions adopt the policy engine, and whether agents use the authorization layer in production environments. Without ecosystem adoption, the value created by the infrastructure itself is limited.

What @NewtonProtocol solves is a real pain point—on-chain trading lacks a layer of strategy checks before settlement. But token unlock pressure, the limitations of hardware trust in TEE, the lack of audits, and unverified ecosystem adoption are all hanging blades. The direction is right, but the risks are obvious.
#newt $NEWT

The Grvt creator event is already on its last day!
There’s one very important thing you must not forget!
Be sure to go to the @grvt_io official website and fill in the address where you will receive the airdrop. I believe many people will think it’s a hassle and not bother, but what if on the day the system goes live on the 21st, an airdrop really comes through?

The steps are very simple and not complicated!
1: Open your wallet DApp and go to the official website;
2: On the left, click on Grvt Airdrop;
3: It has three steps. For the first step, just choose anything and watch/read its introduction. For the second step, select the time you want to claim the airdrop. It offers an “immediate claim,” or 4-month and 8-month lock-up periods. Of course, the lock-up periods give multiple times the coins, and they are claimed immediately. The third step is the most important: fill in the address where you will receive the airdrop!

My points are very few—I’m betting that it will send some airdrops to users whose addresses are filled in. After all, Grvt has raised over 30 million, and the technology is also pretty good. It all depends on the project team’s vision! #grvt

The 9th anniversary card can be done if you’re on the 8th task!
The system gave an extra trading task—did it right away and it completed the 8th task. Everything can be unlocked today!
Overall it’s pretty much like that—looks like you just finish everything and it’s like it got enhanced by about a dozen cuts!
If you haven’t done it yet, go for it!
#BinanceTurns9
#币安九周年

Recently I pulled up Newton Protocol’s Mainnet Beta again and reviewed it. This time I wasn’t focusing on the linkage involving VaultKit and the Policy Engine. Instead, I looked at the data sources behind it: RedStone’s price feed and Credora’s risk ratings. A thought crossed my mind—why go to all this trouble to stuff a bunch of external data into a policy engine? Wouldn’t it be simpler to hard-code the rules into smart contracts? Tracing the entire data flow is what made it click: what Newton truly wants to change isn’t how the rules are written, but what the rules rely on to stay alive.

In the past, when I studied on-chain risk control, the biggest fear was that kind of “hard-coded trust” approach. The code might have no vulnerabilities, but markets don’t stand still. If you set an LTV at 150% and someone pokes the price with a needle, you can still get liquidated. If a sanctions list is hard-coded in the contract, and a new address gets added, it has to wait for a contract upgrade. The rules themselves may be fine—but if the data the rules depend on becomes outdated, inaccurate, or is manipulated, then even perfect rules are essentially useless. That’s the core of the oracle problem: how good or bad the policy engine is depends entirely on how reliable the data it reads is. @NewtonProtocol

Newton’s approach is a bit different from traditional projects. It doesn’t invent its own data sources. Instead, it directly plugs RedStone’s validated price data and Credora’s real-time risk ratings into the Policy Engine. Each time a transaction reaches the authorization layer, the policy engine evaluates it using RedStone’s real-time market data—whether the collateral ratio is sufficient, whether the price is abnormal—then decides whether to approve or block. The key is that every evaluation generates a signed proof. What remains on-chain isn’t only the execution result, but also an auditable record of why the transaction was allowed this time. My trust, instead of going to the rule-writer who might never make mistakes, gradually shifts to the fact that the data the rules depend on can be verified and traced.

The deeper I look, the more I feel that Newton’s real value isn’t just adding another risk-control checkpoint. It’s turning the basis for policy enforcement into something independently verifiable. Policies can change; data can be checked. Every block or approval comes with evidence that can be examined. Just like RedStone says, the strength of the policy engine depends on the quality of the data it reads. And the reverse is also true: when data is verifiable and traceable, every decision the policy engine makes finally has a real foundation. #newt $NEWT