Finished the Bedrock task a bit ago. Been thinking about one thing since.

The capital efficiency pitch from #Bedrock — $BR , @Bedrock — reads almost frictionless on paper. Stake BTC, get uniBTC back, redeploy it across DeFi, stack Babylon yields underneath, all without touching the base asset. One asset doing multiple jobs at once. The kind of thing that looks clean in a protocol overview.

But in actual use the top tier of it is gated. You stake BTC and get base yields by default — fine. The boosted layer, the real efficiency multiplier, only appears after you're locking BR into veBR. So when the messaging says "capital efficiency for BTC holders," that's partly accurate. The premium version is really for people already deep in the BR governance loop.

And there's something sitting with me about the June 20 unlock coming up — on-chain vesting records show 40.63M BR releasing in 13 days: 25M to the Founding Team, 15.63M to Seed Investment. Full liquidity, no locking required. Retail is actively nudged to lock longer for yield. The team gets unlocked allocations on schedule.

Hmm. I'm not flagging it as a problem. These are disclosed schedules. But when you're mid-task and notice who captures liquidity without locks versus who earns it through locking… the "capital efficiency in practice" story gets layered pretty fast.

Who is the protocol actually optimizing for in its current state?