I have always had a bias:
BTC is not suitable for being turned into complex financial structures.
The reason is simple—
The more fundamental the asset, the more afraid it is of being 'over-designed.'
So when I first saw the Lorenzo Protocol, I viewed it with skepticism, and this skepticism was not technical, but structural:
Does an asset that is based on 'minimum trust' really need to enter multi-layer protocols?
Later, I changed my mind, not because I suddenly believed it, but because I realized—
Lorenzo did not attempt to make BTC more aggressive; it is finding boundaries for BTC.
One, Lorenzo has not changed BTC, but acknowledged BTC's 'usability issues'.
Many projects pretend that BTC is very usable, just 'lacking tools'.
Lorenzo is not that pretentious.
Its entire design actually acknowledges three not-so-pleasant facts:
BTC is inherently unsuitable for frequent circulation.
BTC users are extremely averse to complex operations.
The biggest problem with BTC is not returns, but idleness.
So Lorenzo did not do 'BTC + everything'.
It only does one thing:
Let BTC have an additional behavioral outlet under the premise of immutability.
This is also why the positioning of stBTC is very restrained—
It exists, but does not overshadow others.
Two, I started to pay real attention to Lorenzo because it 'did not outsource risk'.
Many common patterns in BTC-related protocols are:
Risks are written in small letters.
Returns are written in big letters.
Responsibility is left to users.
One very unusual point about Lorenzo is:
It defaults to risk control being the protocol's responsibility, not the user's understanding.
For example:
The use boundaries of stBTC are clearly limited.
Product combinations are not infinitely open.
Expansion order is obviously conservative.
This is actually quite disadvantageous in the context of a bull market, but it precisely shows that it knows what it is dealing with.
Three, stBTC is more like a 'placeholder', not a profit machine.
If you focus on the expected returns of stBTC, you are likely to undervalue it.
But if you treat stBTC as a system interface, things will become reasonable:
BTC → stBTC: identity conversion.
stBTC → various products: function expansion.
Returns are just a byproduct, not the goal.
It essentially solves an old problem:
What does BTC rely on to be recognized, used, and trusted on the chain?
Lorenzo's answer is not 'higher returns', but 'clearer positioning'.
Four, multi-chain layout is not sexy, but it is the true form of BTC.
If Lorenzo only bets on one chain, I would be pessimistic instead.
BTC users have never belonged to a specific ecosystem.
To let BTC be 'represented' by a certain chain is itself a value misalignment.
So Lorenzo's multi-chain approach is actually not ambition, but reality:
BTC should be the same everywhere.
stBTC cannot deteriorate on different chains.
Risk models must be consistent.
This route means:
Speed will never keep up with the narrative.
But it at least avoids the structural problem of 'if one chain is good, BTC will be tied up'.
Five, $BANK here is more like a governance tool rather than an incentive switch.
To put it bluntly, $BANK is designed to stimulate users.
It is more like giving the system a steering wheel.
I judge the establishment of $BANK based on one point:
👉 Does it have the ability to prevent wrong decisions?
If:
It cannot intervene in high-risk strategies.
It cannot limit expansion.
It only decides whether to distribute money.
Then it is just a delayed release of risk.
But if $BANK relates to 'whether to do' and 'to what extent',
Then the logic of this token's existence is complete.
Six, one realistic point about Lorenzo: it is not suitable for everyone.
I would rather be wary of a BTC protocol that 'everyone is suitable for'.
Lorenzo is very clear about not pleasing three types of people:
Wanting to enter and exit quickly.
Those who do not understand structural risks.
Treating BTC as a short-term chip.
It is more like providing for those who have already decided to hold BTC long-term.
Provide an option of 'should we take a step further'.
Seven, the final judgment is not announced externally, but is responsible only to oneself.
If you ask me whether Lorenzo is successful, I currently have no answer.
But I can confirm one thing:
It has not avoided the difficulties of BTC, nor has it secretly solved problems with narratives.
This is actually rare in the current environment.
Lorenzo is not a protocol that can draw conclusions just by looking at the data.
It is more like a structure that needs to be tested over time.
If it runs out, the position of BTC will be redefined;
If it hasn't run out, it only indicates one thing—
The financialization of BTC is really not that simple.
Original statement and release requirements.
This article is original content and only represents personal research and judgment, not investment advice.
Must be marked when released:
cointag：$BANK
