I want to put something bluntly because I think it’s more important than being a little optimistic.
Bedrock’s liquidity has strange behavior when looking at their surface numbers. I had a real life test. Not a theory. Not a simulation.
I executed a real trade against what I thought was sufficient market depth. The market absorbed a tiny fraction of what the numbers meant it should. Following that, the environment shifted.
That experience was frankly disappointing because I believe their underlying architecture was well thought-out.
This is my frustration. What is shown to be liquidity, and what liquidity is available for execution, are different things. Most protocols don’t even bother to acknowledge this because it requires admitting that their Total Value Locked (TVL) and Depth metrics are more marketing numbers than operational metrics.
Liquidity spread across many chains may appear to be impressive. However, liquidity that holds depth under real execution is a fundamentally different, and more impressive, thing.
What is hiding under Bedrock’s Yield surface is most likely a sign they understand this, and Bedrock is committed to supplementing depth even if it is not there right now. uniBTC is sending real Bitcoin right into Proof of Stake and means that the user’s of the protocol are participating in real network activity as opposed to activity that instantaneously disappears when the incentives are no longer present.
Real depth is only created when liquidity mining stops and the depth is retained.
I am paying attention to the gap that I hit and the foundation they put under it to see which one really wins.