Was BTCFi Overhyped Given Its Underwhelming Reception?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Was BTCFi Overhyped Given Its Underwhelming Reception?
Does Babylon's sustainable yield narrative make sense?
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsBy: Haotian
It's been nearly a month since @babylonlabs_io launched on mainnet, yet the anticipated BTCFi market response hasn't been as enthusiastic as expected. So, what issues emerged during Babylon’s first staking phase? Does Babylon’s sustainable yield narrative hold up? And has the market overestimated Babylon’s potential impact? Here are my thoughts:
1) Babylon’s core innovation lies in its Self-Custody model, enabling users to lock their BTC assets via script contracts on the Bitcoin mainchain while simultaneously providing “security consensus services” to various BTC Layer2s—and thereby earning rich yields from extended chains.
At this stage, only the first half of that statement holds true. Indeed, Babylon’s sophisticated cryptographic architecture allows users to earn additional yield on self-custodied BTC—a possibility unavailable in CeDeFi or Wrapped-BTC models, which require third-party custodians. Babylon doesn’t. If supported by the wallet, users can see their staked BTC still reflected in their own balances.
The second half, however, remains an immature promise. To convert Babylon’s security consensus into a revenue-generating service, several prerequisites must be met:
First: A large number of users—including validators holding significant voting power—must stake BTC within Babylon’s protocol deployed on the Bitcoin mainchain;
Second: Massive aggregation of LST (Liquid Staked Tokens) assets is required, generating strong liquidity to form the foundation for ecosystem growth, user adoption, and TVL expansion;
Third: A substantial number of new POS-based Layer2 chains must “purchase” Babylon’s security consensus service and offer sustainable yield returns.
2) Currently, Babylon has only opened a limited first-phase staking pool of 1,000 BTC—an experimental launch at best—that has already revealed several challenges, making it difficult to satisfy all three conditions above simultaneously. For example:
1. The staking process incurs high transaction fee costs when interacting with the Babylon protocol.
This includes fee surges caused by network congestion due to FOMO-driven staking activity, as well as fees associated with future unbonding and withdrawal operations.
Take the first-phase staking rush as an example: If each transaction is capped at 0.005 BTC and only transactions confirmed within the first five blocks are valid, a single institutional validator aiming to deposit 100 BTC would need to submit 20,000 transactions within one hour—and have them confirmed ahead of competitors. This inevitably causes short-term spikes in network fees, significantly increasing staking costs. Reports suggest miner fees exceeded 5% of the total amount staked. (For reference only; official data may vary.)
2. Native BTC deposited into Babylon is not pegged 1:1 with wrapped versions circulating in its ecosystem.
Since Babylon does not issue a directly tradable wrapped BTC token, wrapped BTC variants in circulation are provided by participating staking nodes such as: @SolvProtocol, @Bedrock_DeFi, @LorenzoProtocol, @Pumpbtcxyz, @Lombard_Finance, among others.
These institutional validators stake a certain amount of BTC with Babylon but issue wrapped BTC tokens whose liquidity far exceeds their actual staked amounts (which is necessary to scale LST liquidity).
This means that while Babylon ensures the security of native BTC locked on the Bitcoin mainchain, it cannot guarantee the liquidity safety or absolute trustworthiness of these wrapped BTC variants issued by third-party platforms. That responsibility falls on the aggregators themselves—to maintain credibility through public audits, transparent smart contracts, and other trust mechanisms.
In other words, if we compare Babylon to Lido, where users receive stETH after depositing ETH, Babylon itself does not issue a native liquid token. Instead, liquidity is provided by platforms like Solv Protocol (SolvBTC.BBN), BedRock (uniBTC), etc. Babylon thus functions more like a central bank operating under partial reserves, imposing minimal reserve requirements on liquidity providers (acting as regional banks), with overall system security relying on coordination between central and local entities.
These two issues mean that within the broader BTCFi movement, Babylon plays only a supporting role in “securing the foundation.” The real action will be driven by liquidity aggregators like Solv Protocol, BedRock, Lorenzo, and PumpBTC.
Critically, the initial FOMO-fueled market sentiment drastically raises entry costs for participants, intensifying pressure on downstream yield generation and exit strategies.
Just as EigenLayer’s AVS marketplace dynamics are vital to the restaking sector’s survival, Babylon’s progress in commercializing its security consensus service will be the key metric the market demands.
3) So how can Babylon’s “shared security” paradigm generate sustainable yield? In my view, relying solely on market incentives around social security consensus is insufficient. Another force is needed to expand the demand pool among POS chains.
In other words, Babylon’s upstream-downstream economic narrative is fragile, with major uncertainty on the demand side.
Suppose a newly built POS chain wants to integrate with Babylon. First, Babylon needs a fully operational validator network to deliver AVS (Actively Validated Services). For instance, EigenLayer established the “AVS-as-a-Service” narrative by offering decentralized sequencers, oracles, ZK co-processors, and more.
But currently—perhaps due to being too early in its lifecycle—Babylon lacks mature, productized services. Market expectations around Babylon seem limited to competing for staking-based voting rights, aggregating liquidity, running point campaigns, and ultimately sharing spillover gains from growing Babylon’s overall liquidity market. This might work, but building an ecosystem purely on stacked market expectations feels too passive. Is there a more proactive BTCFi yield model?
Yes. As I mentioned in previous writings, Babylon essentially uses economic incentives to create a “social security consensus,” enabling scalable replication of security for BTC Layer2s. An alternative approach leverages ZK technology to build modular blockchain components, creating a “technical security consensus” model that accelerates rapid deployment of BTC Layer2s.
Take @GOATRollup as an example. The @ProjectZKM team has developed a general-purpose Layer2 framework based on ZK technology, including a zkVM execution layer, Entangled Rollup Network for shared interoperable communication, and a decentralized Sequencer layer. Together, they provide modular services enabling native cross-chain functionality without bridges and a unified, composable liquidity hub.
Compared to Babylon, Goat locks native BTC on the Bitcoin mainchain and immediately issues 1:1 wrapped goatBTC. It offers native mining rewards via decentralized sequencers (yBTC) and incorporates designs like Pendle-style yield-tokenization to diversify yield opportunities.
In essence, Goat Network functions similarly to a “Rollup-as-a-Service” provider in the Ethereum ecosystem, delivering modular frameworks to scale BTC Layer2 POS chains while establishing a sustainable BTC yield economy that makes its narrative truly executable.
To sum up:
It’s clear that Babylon’s innovative cryptographic security model primarily excels at rapidly consolidating fragmented BTC market liquidity, creating momentum for ecosystem development. The scale and efficiency of core liquidity capital underpin the viability of its entire narrative.
To achieve economies of scale among POS chains and scale commercialized security consensus services, complementary ZK-based technologies—such as modular shared sequencers, interoperability layers, and data availability solutions—are essential.
So, is Babylon overhyped, or simply misunderstood? I hope the above perspectives offer some clarity.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
Haotian | CryptoInsight
