$BR
Modularity matters because yield is not one thing anymore.
That line started making more sense to me while looking at Bedrock 2.0.
Earlier, I used to think a BTC vault only needed one clean promise.
Put Bitcoin in.
Make it productive.
Keep the yield flowing.
But that view feels too simple now.
Different Bitcoin holders are not all looking for the same thing.
One user may want something more stable.
Another may want a market-neutral route that does not depend directly on BTC going up.
Another may want DeFi liquidity when on-chain flow is strong.
Another may want RWA exposure when crypto-native routes feel too noisy.
So if Bedrock only had one vault style, it would force all Bitcoin capital into the same risk mood.
That is why the modular vault framework feels like real product-market fit to me.
It does not treat yield like one fixed product.
It separates the job.
Delta-neutral vaults answer the need for non-directional return.
DeFi-native vaults answer the need for active liquidity deployment.
Credit vaults answer the need for structured lending demand.
RWA vaults answer the need for cycle diversification.
And uniBTC sits at the center as the Bitcoin capital layer that can connect to these different paths.
That is the part I like.
Bedrock 2.0 is not saying every user should want the same yield.
It is building a system where different risk needs can exist inside one Bitcoin engine.
For me, that is stronger than a single vault.
Because mature BTCfi should not ask users to fit the product.
The product should understand the user’s capital need first.
What does BTCfi need most now?