I've found myself paying more attention to protocol coordination than transaction counts because that's often where the real scalability constraints appear.
In Babylon, vault creation depends on collecting the required signatures before the process can move on-chain.That step is easy to dismiss as operational overhead, but I think it reveals something more important: infrastructure is only as efficient as the participants coordinating behind it.
From an investor's perspective, successful vault creation isn't just a measure of demand.It's evidence that independent actors can reliably synchronize when security requires it.That makes coordination quality an overlooked metric alongside TVL or staking participation.
"Reliable coordination is a form of protocol liquidity."
The weakness,of course, is that every additional coordination requirement introduces another potential bottleneck..If signer availability becomes inconsistent, activation slows even if user interest remains high.That's not necessarily a security failure, but it can become a growth constraint.
I could be missing part of the picture, yet it seems the market pays far more attention to completed vaults than to the rate of failed or abandoned attempts. Understanding where coordination breaks down may tell us more about long-term network resilience than headline adoption numbers ever will.