I keep thinking about how much of the last cycle's damage came down to one boring word: rehypothecation. Collateral that gets reused, restaked, re-lent, until nobody can actually trace what's backing what. That's what makes TBV's "no rehypothecation" stance worth sitting with. The mechanic itself is simple. Deposited BTC stays as deposited BTC. It isn't quietly routed into other protocols to generate extra yield, isn't pledged twice, isn't doing double duty as collateral somewhere else while still showing up on someone's balance sheet. What I don't know yet is how this holds up once yield pressure builds and users start asking why returns look modest next to more "creative" vaults.
I'd rather see slower, verifiable yield than a structure that looks fine until redemptions spike all at once. The question is whether users actually value this restraint, or whether they drift toward whichever vault promises more, until the next unwind teaches the lesson again.
I'm watching redemption behavior under stress, not just TVL growth.
@BabylonLabs_io #baby $BABY