文哥web3社区

Query panel data for $DEXE . Currently TVL is over $700 million. TVL has fallen by 2/3 compared to its peak. This is mainly because the DEXE token has dropped by 95%. There has been no panic outflow from other staked assets. Also, a few days ago the project team stated on X that they have not sold any tokens, which should provide some support to the market, right?

Daily protocol revenue is $40k (which corresponds to nearly $10 million+ in annual revenue). Of this revenue, 30% is used to buy back DEXE tokens. Using a traditional 50x PE valuation (extremely pessimistic), the token price = 1000×50÷9600 = $5.2083333. Using a more optimistic valuation of around 200x for the same track in the crypto industry, the token price = 1000×200÷9600 = about $20.8333333.

So based on this kind of estimate, no matter how we calculate the token price, it seems seriously undervalued. Right now the price is below 2.4U; even using traditional valuation, it should be at least about $5.2. Shouldn’t it be? Could it be that the “dog庄” is deliberately digging a hole?

$GRVT collected the air drop and cashed out, and the cost was that the token price was slashed in half within three days—from 180U at the time of claiming the air drop down to the current 90U. Sure enough, “selling high and never selling low” really does pay off!

Back to the GRVT project—I don’t think its trend should look like this. This project is one of this year’s “small kings,” with extremely high hype. After it went live, all the major exchanges listed it immediately (the only one this year). Yet its circulating market cap is only over $20 million?! And it’s still been steadily drifting down.

What’s more, the technical advantages are very clear: GRVT is a hybrid DEX that combines the speed of a CEX with DeFi self-custody; the unified margin account can simultaneously earn interest, hold spot, and open/close contracts; and platform data growth is fast—its TVL has already exceeded $100 million.

Overall, grvt’s fundamentals are pretty good, but the current token price is hard to understand—it’s been grinding lower since listing.

Do you think this is the market maker digging a pit to digest the sell pressure from the airdrop and TGE over this period, or will it keep falling all the way?

Today I read through Babylon’s TBV documentation again. Everyone we talk about is how BTC can finally enter DeFi—but I think what TBV really wants to do is even harsher: why does it have to trade away security control in exchange for liquidity? @BabylonLabs_io

I’ve seen bridges, multisigs, and custodians too many times. To put it simply, it’s all about continuously stacking trust assumptions.

This time, TBV changed the game. The official docs are very direct: “A Trustless Bitcoin Vault spans two networks. BTC stays on the Bitcoin Network for the vault's entire lifetime.” From start to finish, BTC doesn’t move at all—it stays on the Bitcoin mainnet. The documentation also emphasizes “without giving up custody, bridging, wrapping, or trusting an intermediary,” with no custodian and no cross-chain bridge.

What makes me pause to think is the design: “one independent UTXO for each vault.” The docs say, “Each vault is a segregated, depositor-owned Bitcoin output.” Each vault is created and bound to a unique Bitcoin UTXO. The spending path is “welded shut” in advance using pre-signed transactions. There’s one line in the docs that really stuck with me: “Trust moves from custody to computation.” Bitcoin doesn’t need to understand smart contracts on another chain. Instead, it relies on “cryptographic proof verified inside Bitcoin Script.”

But I’m not that optimistic either. The slashing/penalty mechanism is my biggest concern. The docs mention EOTS—using dual signatures would expose the private key and trigger slashing. The logic holds, but if anything goes wrong in key management or in the dual-signature verification, the consequences could be significant. Audits have already disclosed some vulnerabilities, and the team is fixing them—but whether this cryptographic pipeline can run reliably is the real test.

I’m also unsure about the token model. $BABY is used for gas and governance. But the core settlement business doesn’t strictly require the protocol’s own token—can it really capture value? I’m skeptical.

After reading all these docs, my takeaway is this: TBV achieves releasing liquidity without having to trade away security. This point matters more to me than the returns themselves. #baby

Last night on the Bitcointalk forum, I came across an old post where someone asked, “Is there any way to let BTC participate in DeFi without leaving the mainnet?” The replies below were all “Impossible, Bitcoin Script has no covenant.” After reading the documentation for @BabylonLabs_io , I realized that this “impossible” may be getting rewritten.

What I find most interesting about Babylon is that its staking mechanism completely bypasses bridges and custodians. The official docs clearly say BTC holders can stake without bridging, with BTC staying on the mainnet the whole time, with no wrapping and no cross-chain transfer. The docs repeatedly emphasize self-custody and trustless execution. This approach is indeed on a different level from those solutions on the market that turn BTC into wBTC.

Each Vault is an independent UTXO, isolated from one another. The whitepaper says this eliminates the need for trust in multiple parties. But zero-knowledge proofs themselves also involve trust assumptions; my understanding is that this simply shifts trust from humans to cryptography. What really matters is that Bitcoin always evaluates spending conditions according to its own script verification rules, while external chains are only responsible for generating state and proofs. I think this design is rigorous.

How the slashing mechanism is actually implemented is the issue I spent the most time thinking about. Bitcoin has no PoS validators; the core relies on EOTS. If there is a double-sign, the nonce must be reused, and the private key may be recovered. The slashing conditions are written into the script in advance, and once the private key is exposed, execution can happen. The logic holds, but if any step in key management or double-sign detection goes wrong, slashing could deviate from expectations. The docs also admit that majority consensus is needed to carry it out, and there is still not much real-world data on how it actually operates.

I have some doubts about the token model. BTC stakers receive rewards of $BABY , but Babylon’s core settlement business does not require its own token, and fees can be paid in BTC or the native coin of a PoS chain. BABY is mainly for governance and gas, and whether it can support value capture is something I remain cautious about.

Honestly, what I care about most is whether this chain from cryptographic proof to slashing can remain stable in actual operation. Not modifying Bitcoin’s underlying layer and relying entirely on cryptographic proofs for cross-chain interaction is highly meaningful if it works, but if any part of EOTS, ZK proofs, or pre-signed transactions fails, the consequences are serious.

Do you think this technical route will ultimately run reliably?
#baby

I received the $GRVT Booster reward, thanks to @币安广场 . I’m planning to hold on to it for a bigger outlook and list it at $0.8 😄

Last night, I read the Trustless Bitcoin Vaults whitepaper by flipping through @BabylonLabs_io , and the first sentence of the Abstract completely stunned me: “Bitcoin is by far the largest crypto asset by market capitalization, yet the vast majority of it remains idle”. I knew that most BTC has been asleep for a while, but seeing it stated plainly in black and white in the whitepaper feels different.

Babylon is definitely chewing on a tough bone. The official documentation’s definition of a Trustless Bitcoin Vault is very straightforward: “Bitcoin holders deposit their BTC into these on-chain vaults in a self-custodial fashion.” The assets always stay on the Bitcoin mainnet—no bridging, no wrapping, no custody by third parties. The whitepaper also emphasizes that vaults are programmable: withdrawals are only allowed after zero-knowledge proof is verified on the Bitcoin chain. Compared with other BTCFi projects out there, this difference is extremely obvious. Other projects practically want to move BTC away; Babylon simply refuses to let it move.

That said, I’ve been thinking for a long time about how slashing would actually be implemented. Bitcoin itself has no PoS validators, and there are no consensus rules that tell miners who should be punished. The EOTS Manager section of the official documentation is very clear: if a Finality Provider signs two conflicting blocks at the same height, it must reuse the same random nonce—then the private key is exposed, and the conditions for executing the slashing transaction are in place. Cryptographically, it’s fine, but in the real world, as long as something goes wrong in key management, double-sign detection, or any related step, the consequences may be unpredictable.

The token model also makes me hesitate. BTC stakers pay BTC fees, and PoS chains also pay BTC or native tokens—yet Babylon’s core business doesn’t really need $BABY . If BABY only does governance or incentivizes secondary validators, the inflation pressure isn’t small.

According to the project’s official disclosures, as of mid-2026 the amount of Bitcoin staked has already exceeded 57,000 BTC. Per the roadmap, Phase 3’s multi-staking feature would allow a single BTC to secure multiple PoS chains at the same time. If this really works, it’s like opening a new route for tens of trillions of BTC—there’s definitely a lot of imagination space there. But any issue in the whole stack—pre-signed transactions, EOTS key management, or the verification cost of zero-knowledge proofs—could cause the entire system to fail.

What do you all think? Do you think it will ultimately work?
#baby

When I was reading the TBV document for translating @BabylonLabs_io , I got stuck on a single word and couldn’t move on: “translation.” I couldn’t understand how Bitcoin Script can’t read the lending/borrowing state on Ethereum—so what on earth is TBV connecting? After studying it for a while, it finally clicked: it isn’t moving BTC, it’s translating it.

In the first step of past BTCFi designs, you have bridges, wrapping, and custody—moving BTC out of its native network. Once the application space is created, control is handed over. TBV wants to change that: BTC is locked in a Vault on the Bitcoin chain, with each Vault corresponding to its own independent UTXOs, so the assets always follow Bitcoin rules. The official documentation puts it plainly: “Let BTC holders use it as collateral without giving up custody, without bridging, without wrapping, and without trusting intermediaries.” The core is one sentence: assets don’t move—prove that something else does.

But the real difficulty is here: Bitcoin doesn’t read external-chain states—so how do you verify them? In the Protocol architecture section, the document describes three layers: Bitcoin Script, Ethereum contracts, and off-chain participants’ software. It uses Light Client Proofs and ZK SNARKs to translate external conditions into rules that Bitcoin can understand. In the Glossary, the definition of BitVM3 is: “Bitcoin-side construction family that lets a zero-knowledge proof generated off-chain be verified by Bitcoin's existing script capabilities.” From start to finish, Bitcoin doesn’t understand any smart contract at all—it only decides whether a UTXO can be spent based on proofs it can verify.

After finishing all that, I started to worry about another question: what is the cost of translation? There’s a detail in the FAQs that I kept rereading: the mainnet staking/lockup cycle is fixed at 64,000 Bitcoin blocks—roughly 15 months—and it doesn’t support partial unbonding. The Litepaper says it “supports fast stake unbonding,” so how is 15 months “fast”? As of mid-2026, the protocol has locked over 56,000 BTC (about $5.6 billion), making it the largest Bitcoin-native yield protocol. But for ordinary holders, the complex game theory around staking, delegation, unbonding, and slashing/penalty mechanisms still makes the barrier fairly high.

This path Babylon takes—no bridging, no wrapping, no transferring custody—is indeed uncommon in BTCFi. But in the long run, $BABY ’s value depends on two things: whether TBV’s liquidation efficiency can hold up under extreme market conditions, and whether ordinary users can actually understand how this mechanism works.

What worries you most is the technical risk of the lockup period being too long? Let’s discuss in the comments. #baby

$SNDK A friend asked: “SanDisk has collapsed, can I buy?”
My view is: not only can you not buy—it’s better to short it.
Reasons: 1) Over the past year, SanDisk’s stock surged nearly a hundredfold, building up a huge valuation bubble. The market has topped out and the trend has reversed. Even though the share price has already halved, it’s still overvalued.
2) There is intense external competitive pressure, facing major impacts from players like Unisplendour.
3) SanDisk’s stock price lacks fundamental support. SanDisk is still in a loss position; the price-to-book ratio is more than a dozen times, and the PE is negative. When it falls, there’s very weak support below.
If you want to go long, at least wait until it breaks below $200—meaning the stock price would need to fall another 80% from the current level.

Last night I was scrolling through Twitter and saw news about @BabylonLabs_io on Trustless Bitcoin Vaults mainnet test. The drowsiness vanished instantly. After reading the official documentation, I realized this might be quite different from the BTC yield/earn projects out there.

What makes Babylon feel truly different to me is how it handles trust. The official doc #baby clearly states that TBV operates across two chains: BTC stays on the Bitcoin network throughout, while the Ethereum side is only responsible for tracking the Vault state. No bridges, no off-chain oracles, no wrapped custody provider. I read that sentence several times—if it can really be done, then it is definitely in a different dimension from existing solutions.

Each Vault is an independent set of Bitcoin UTXOs owned by the depositor, not something thrown into a shared capital pool. The documentation emphasizes that Vaults are isolated from one another: one Vault is a bundle of UTXOs plus a set of pre-signed exit paths. I think this design thinking makes sense—it's the necessary trade-off to let BTC holders participate in DeFi without giving up self-custody.

But what keeps me cautious is the EOTS key management part. As described in the doc, if the Finality Provider signs two conflicting blocks at the same height, reusing the secret random number will enable the recovery of the private key, and the penalty transaction will become eligible to execute. That logic holds up cryptographically, but if a software failure causes a double-sign, whether the penalty outcome can still map precisely to malicious behavior is something I haven’t seen enough real-world testing data to allay my concerns.

According to the roadmap, the project plans to launch a multi-staking testnet in Q3 2025 and the mainnet in Q4; the timeline is pretty tight. Per the information the team has released, the amount of Bitcoin staked has already exceeded 57,000 BTC, but integrating a new application requires tailoring contracts for each app and registering via governance—it's not plug-and-play. Whether it will be discounted once running at scale is still something I want to watch.

What’s truly worth paying attention to with Babylon isn’t generating yield on BTC, but whether it can build a secure cryptographic channel without changing the underlying Bitcoin protocol. If that path works, the significance would be huge—but if any of the components—pre-signed transactions, BABE proofs, or EOTS key management—has a problem, the consequences could be severe.

How do you all see Babylon in this direction? Do you think it will ultimately work as intended? $BABY

When I was translating the TBV document for @BabylonLabs_io , I got stuck on a single word and couldn’t move on: “translation.” Bitcoin Script can’t read the lending/borrowing status on Ethereum—so what exactly is TBV connecting? After studying it for a while, it finally clicked: it’s not moving BTC; it’s translating.

In the past, the first step in most BTCFi proposals was bridge, wrapping, and custody—moving BTC out of its native network. That opens up application space, but you give up control. TBV wants to change this: BTC is locked in a Vault on the Bitcoin chain, and each Vault corresponds to an independent UTXO, so the assets always follow Bitcoin rules.

The official documentation says it plainly: “Enable BTC holders to use their BTC as collateral without giving up custody, without bridging, without wrapping, and without trusting intermediaries.” The core message is one sentence—no more.

But the real difficulty is right here: since Bitcoin doesn’t read external chain state, how do you verify it? The “Protocol architecture” chapter lays out three layers: Bitcoin Script, Ethereum contracts, and off-chain participant software. In plain terms, it translates external conditions into rules Bitcoin can understand, bridging the gap using Light Client Proofs and ZK SNARKs.

After translating all that, I started worrying about another question: what does translation cost? In the FAQs there’s a detail I re-read multiple times before I confirmed it: the mainnet staking period is fixed at 64,000 BTC blocks—about 15 months—and it doesn’t support partial unstaking. The Litepaper claims “supports quick unstaking,” so what kind of “quick” is 15 months? That’s not a low barrier for ordinary holders.

On the Babylon path—no bridging, no wrapping, no handoff of custody—it’s indeed rare in BTCFi. But in the long run, the value of $BABY depends on two things: whether TBV’s liquidation efficiency in protocols like Aave can withstand extreme market conditions, and whether everyday users can truly understand what’s going on with staking, delegation, unstaking, and Slashing. What are you most worried about—technical risk or the too-long lockup period? Let’s talk in the comments.
#baby

Choose A, Binance bStocks are newly listed.
Reason: You can invest in US stock ETFs without opening an overseas account. The entry threshold is low and the volatility is lower than that of so-called low-quality coins. With good liquidity and strong stability, it helps you diversify investment risk, so it is a key focus in the near term.

When I read the TBV technical documentation about "翻@BabylonLabs_io ," the word "translation" made me pause for a while. The official wording is: “The Bitcoin side knows only 'redeem'; the application layer translates user actions into the redeem call.” Translation isn’t cross-chain, it isn’t bridging—it’s taking what happens on Ethereum and turning it into something the Bitcoin script can uniquely understand. Bitcoin scripts can’t read what’s happening on another chain, let alone react to it. What Babylon truly aims to solve is how to make a chain that can’t “program” understand the outside world.

TBV’s layered design is more solid than I expected. BTC is locked in a Taproot output and includes multiple spend leaves, covering legitimate paths such as redemption, liquidation, and fraud challenges. The documentation is straightforward: “every legitimate spend path is constructed and signed by all required participants at vault creation. After creation, no party can fabricate a new spend.” All legitimate paths are hard-coded at creation time, and nobody can change them afterward. Trust isn’t handed to operators—it’s handed to the rules.

But I also have concerns. TBV is currently running on a testnet; its real-world performance on mainnet still needs verification. Bitcoin release relies on verifying a zero-knowledge proof within the Taproot script. This “translation” process involves Garbled Circuits combined with WOTS commitments, making the technical complexity quite high. The official docs also admit that integrating a new application “is not plug-and-play.”

As of May 2026, $BABY has staked more than 56,000 BTC, with TVL of about $5.6 billion. a16z invested $15 million to support TBV infrastructure development. The next step, Phase 3, is multi-staking—letting a single BTC simultaneously provide security guarantees to multiple PoS networks. If this works as planned, Bitcoin holders could earn multiple sets of rewards from a single asset.

But I still feel the most important thing to watch isn’t how many BTC are locked, but whether those BTC truly correspond to the security needs of the external networks. Without real demand, the so-called “shared security” may end up just increasing the scale of capital. What do you think?
#baby

Check out the prize release center and discover a whole wave of rewards coming your way—Binance’s reward giveaways never drag their feet 👍. Clear away the gloomy cloud hanging over the market with its nonstop downturn

#bStocks探索计划
I chose ABB and became the “Sky Island Engineer”! Breaking through with wafer-scale compute, supplying the entire domain with coordinated scheduling, and launching AI-powered spaceships—every step demonstrates this: survival isn’t brute force, but a precise combination of computing power + ecosystem + dimensional lift. Investing is the same—strategy determines the height!

3:00 a.m., Argentina take on Spain—world No. 1 versus world No. 2, European champions versus South American champions.

Spain conceded just one goal in seven matches; their defense is rock solid. Argentina came back in every game, but stamina is a potential problem: after the semifinals, the whole team didn’t arrive in New York until late at night, and their preparation got thrown off.

The hottest topic is 39-year-old Messi versus 19-year-old Lamine Yamal. Ten years ago, there was that charity bath photo—now the two of them are battling it out in the final for the big trophy.

Spain looks steady, and Argentina has Messi—but how much fuel is left in the tank for the veterans is anyone’s guess. Big data favors Spain, but Argentina has been the underdog all the way, yet they’ve still made it here.

At 3:00 a.m., the alarm is set—miss it and you’ll have to wait four more years. Brothers, who do you think will win?

#BinancePickAndWin

#bStocks探索计划
Option B: NBISB spaceship
Reason: Even if the speedboat is fast in a storm, it can’t outrun the giant waves—while an all-stack AI spaceship directly lifts into the clouds, using intelligent computation to find the airflow window and avoid turbulence. With raw computing power, it puts the storm under its feet. This isn’t escape; it’s solving the problem by ascending dimensions: while others gamble their lives fighting the waves, I’m cutting through the clouds to chase the sun!

#bStocks探索计划
Option B：BABAB
Reason: Stockpiling on a deserted island eventually runs out, while “full-area scheduling” is a living supply network! It can sense shortages of supplies and uses cloud-based intelligence to allocate water, tools, even medicine, so every consumption automatically replenishes. WDBC is a static warehouse, BABAB is a perpetual engine—on an isolated island, a mobile supply chain is more lethal than guarding a dead storehouse!

GRVT Booster task has been finalized. The top 300 need to confirm in the wallet before 8:00 tomorrow. Each person will receive 416 GRVT tokens. There are still 4 days until TGE—after it launches, let’s try to push for a wave! How about hitting highs of $1–$2? Looking forward to it! If you haven’t confirmed yet, hurry up and do it ～

A rollercoaster from start to finish: at 3 a.m. on July 20 in New York, Argentina faces Spain.

First, let’s talk about how these two teams got here—completely different styles.

Spain, on the other hand, has been rock solid. In the semifinals, they dispatched France 2-0 with ease, and they’ve notched 37 straight matches without defeat. The most terrifying part is their defense: in seven games, they conceded just one goal. Mbappé finished the match with zero shots on target, and Spain’s back line looked like an immovable slab of steel.

Argentina, meanwhile, makes every match a heart-stopping thriller. In the Round of 16 against Egypt, they were down 0-2, yet they leveled things up with three goals in just 13 minutes. In the quarterfinal against Switzerland, they only got the job done in extra time. In the semifinal vs. England, they trailed 0-1—then within the final seven minutes, they scored two to turn it around. Every match was a comeback from behind, every game a walk-off winner. If you’ve got a weak heart, don’t watch this team.

Then comes the wildest talking point—39 years old vs. 19.

Yamal has just turned 19. In the semifinals, he earned a penalty to send France packing. His idol is Messi. When Messi won his first Ballon d’Or in 2007, Yamal was only three months old. Now, at 19, he’s set to go straight against his 39-year-old idol in the final for the big trophy.

The head-to-head record is also pretty fascinating. They’ve played 14 times, with each side winning six. They only met once in the World Cup: in 1966, Argentina won 2-1. The most recent meeting was a 2018 friendly, where Spain thrashed Argentina 6-1. But most of the Spain players from that game have since retired; on Argentina’s side, Otamendi, Tagliafico, and Lautaro are still there.

As for my own take: Spain’s control of the game is strong, and their defense is as solid as a fortress. Argentina’s fitness could be a hidden risk—after consecutive extra-time games and comebacks, it’s hard to say how much fuel these older players have left. But for a player like Messi, one person can change a match by himself. The big data gives Spain about a 56% chance to win the tournament, but Argentina has been storming through despite being underestimated the whole way.

At 3 a.m. on July 20, the alarm is set and the beer is ready. A 39-year-old legend vs. a 19-year-old genius—defending champions against an unbeaten side. For this game, you’ll have to wait another four years if you miss it.

Drop your thoughts in the comments: do you think Argentina can defend the title, or is it time for Spain’s new king to be crowned?

#BinancePickAndWin