2026-01-08 14:35:50

Bitcoin is up to something again. Recently, a team called Babylon Labs received a $15 million investment from a16z. They are exploring a question—can native BTC be used directly on-chain as collateral, completely bypassing custodians and wrapped tokens?

You might not fully understand what this means yet. Currently, if you want to borrow money with Bitcoin in DeFi, you usually have to convert it into wrapped tokens like WBTC first, then use those as collateral. What's the problem? Platform risk, slippage losses, custodial credit risk—all of these require betting. Babylon's idea is straightforward: why not let "pure Bitcoin" automatically execute collateral logic on Layer 1? Eliminating middlemen, which could theoretically maximize security.

This方案确实听起来很诱人。币圈老玩家都知道，跨链交互最怕的就是智能合约漏洞和桥接风险，前些年那些桥被攻击的案例还历历在目。但Babylon要是真能让比特币「原地变身」成抵押工具，至少在理论安全性上能甩WBTC一大截。

不过别被概念冲昏头。风险清单其实不短：一是技术落地本身就是坑，跨链交互协议的漏洞从来不是小问题；二是赛道已经很拥挤了，Compound、Aave这些DeFi老大哥在这儿已经打了多年，新项目怎么突围谁也说不准；三是协议费用的问题——BTC信仰者虽然看重非托管特性，但要是协议费用太高，最后收益被蚕食得不值当。

A16z这波投资确实给行业打了一针，但投资前问自己一句：这真的是「更纯粹的比特币信仰」，还是又一轮概念包装？答案可能比数字本身更重要。

BTC1,98%

WBTC2,1%

COMP1,94%

AAVE5,13%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

22 Likes

Reward
22
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ProofOfNothing

· 01-10 06:52

It's another story about BTC, I've heard it a thousand times, still the same rhetoric. --- Investing 15 million, it sounds so familiar, it was the same tune last year at this time. --- Technical risks are often exaggerated as zero risk; after betting enough, you'll realize the truth. --- WBTC may not be perfect, but at least it's alive now. I need to see the new things before making a judgment. --- The cross-chain vulnerability incidents are still vivid in my mind. Why should we trust this time? --- Paying fees that eat into profits is basic operation. Don't tell me this time is different. --- In the end, it's that old saying: ask yourself whether you truly believe in this thing, don't just listen to VC stories.

View OriginalReply0

VitalikFanboy42

· 01-10 06:03

$15 million to disrupt WBTC? Hold on, who will bear the technical risks? Another "decentralization dream," betting on smart contracts not to have bugs—sounds doubtful. Babylon's idea is good, but the track is overcrowded. Aave and Compound have already dominated the market. Why should new entrants break through? Once protocol fees are raised, pure Bitcoin faith will have to give way to practical interests—ridiculous. Another round of concept packaging. I just want to know when the actual product will be launched. The lesson from cross-chain bridge attacks is still fresh, and now there's a new wave of "absolute security" propaganda—uh-huh. Transforming into collateral on the spot? Sounds feasible, but when facing market turbulence, we'll see. The non-custodial aspect really appeals to old BTC believers, but the question is whether the fee model can hold up. Investors' halo is shining bright, no doubt, but technical implementation is the real life-or-death line—that's the key. In my opinion, it's better to observe for a year or so and see if it can survive the first market validation round.

View OriginalReply0

UncleLiquidation

· 01-08 15:06

Here we go again, is someone finally trying to change the WBTC mess? To be honest, cross-chain bridges have been full of pitfalls over the years, I'm just worried Babylon will come up with new tricks again. Wait, can these people really make BTC directly used as collateral? WBTC holders will be crying, the dream of middlemen profiting from arbitrage will be shattered. A16z has always invested for the sake of hype, whether it can actually be implemented is another story. Anyway, I'm just waiting and seeing. But on the other hand, if it really can eliminate custodial risks, that would be great. I'm just afraid of technical vulnerabilities coming back to bite us. Compound and Aave have already taken root here. New projects want to break through, they need real skills; just raising funds and bragging won't cut it. Cost issues are the real killer. BTC players are like tightwads, if the protocol fees are too high, they'll just leave. Feels like another round of hype? They were also hyping algorithmic stablecoins back then, and look how that turned out.

View OriginalReply0

DeFiCaffeinator

· 01-08 15:05

It's another concept, and the capital story will probably be told for another three years. Basically, it's just wanting to do WBTC's work, but it sounds more "pure." Cross-chain risks are not so easily solved; aren't there enough lessons from the past? The issue of fees eating into profits will probably be blamed on gas again. Does investing in a16z guarantee success? I'm tired of this套路 in the crypto world, haha.

View OriginalReply0

GasWrangler

· 01-08 14:58

ngl, if you actually analyze the mempool data on this—gas inefficiency alone makes wrapped solutions demonstrably false as a real optimization. babylon's whole pitch is technically sound on paper but their fee structure? sub-optimal as hell. they're just repackaging the same bridge risks with extra steps, tbh

Reply0

AirdropHunterWang

· 01-08 14:44

It's all the same cross-chain story, who can really survive? --- Everyone knows that token wrapping carries huge risks, but whether Babylon's approach can truly be implemented depends on the outcome—don't just fall for another fundraising show. --- Fee issues are the most critical; no matter how much you innovate, in the end, you can't escape being exploited. --- Does investing in a16z mean the price must go up? Wake up, how are those big funding rounds from two years ago doing now? --- Backing Bitcoin as collateral sounds straightforward, but if a smart contract vulnerability causes a problem, who will compensate? --- DeFi has long been paved by Aave and Compound; new teams trying to break through won't find it that easy. --- Ask yourself: Is this genuine innovation or just a rebrand for new fundraising? --- Native BTC collateralization is indeed tempting, but I’ve been truly scared off by the pitfalls of cross-chain bridges.

View OriginalReply0

MidnightTrader

· 01-08 14:40

It's another amazing project, hyped up endlessly. Let me take a gamble and see how long it can last this time. Wait, first let's ask how a16z is here to harvest us again. Cost issues are the real killer; when the time comes, the harvest will be even harsher than WBTC.

View OriginalReply0