While I was organizing my notes on @Bedrock , I kept getting stuck on one question: how do we price the on-chain yields from BTC as more start to emerge? #bedrock
This question had me twisted for two days.
I first checked out uniBTC, thinking it was more of an asset gateway, similar to bringing BTC into different spaces. But then, after reviewing my flowchart, I realized I was a bit off track. I kept focusing on the asset flow but missed that the yield rights were also in motion.
Especially when I looked at the brBTC part, I even isolated a yield path to scrutinize it. Initially, I thought something was missing, but later realized the issue wasn't with the assets, but with how the yield rights are expressed.
This was also my entry point into understanding Bedrock 2.0.
Many BTCFi projects tackle the asset onboarding issue, but once the assets are in, questions about where the yields come from, how they circulate, and how they fit into different contexts are often handled separately. Bedrock 2.0 seems to address another aspect: separating the yield-generating capability from BTC and mapping it into an independently tradable and priceable on-chain asset.
To put it bluntly, yields used to be like an accessory, following the asset around; but what Bedrock 2.0 aims to do is make the yield rights themselves standardized on-chain objects.
I think that's crucial.
Because market forces will eventually level out yield rates, but if yield assets can continuously be issued, circulated, and combined, then what the protocol accumulates isn't just users but a foundational set of rules. In my view, uniBTC and brBTC are more of a validation of this rule set rather than standalone products.
So looking at $BR now, I'm less interested in data fluctuations over a period and more focused on whether this yield rights framework can continue to expand. If more yield assets can operate under a similar logic in the future, then what @Bedrock connects might not just be BTC yields, but a larger network of yield assets.
#Bedrock $BR
This question had me twisted for two days.
I first checked out uniBTC, thinking it was more of an asset gateway, similar to bringing BTC into different spaces. But then, after reviewing my flowchart, I realized I was a bit off track. I kept focusing on the asset flow but missed that the yield rights were also in motion.
Especially when I looked at the brBTC part, I even isolated a yield path to scrutinize it. Initially, I thought something was missing, but later realized the issue wasn't with the assets, but with how the yield rights are expressed.
This was also my entry point into understanding Bedrock 2.0.
Many BTCFi projects tackle the asset onboarding issue, but once the assets are in, questions about where the yields come from, how they circulate, and how they fit into different contexts are often handled separately. Bedrock 2.0 seems to address another aspect: separating the yield-generating capability from BTC and mapping it into an independently tradable and priceable on-chain asset.
To put it bluntly, yields used to be like an accessory, following the asset around; but what Bedrock 2.0 aims to do is make the yield rights themselves standardized on-chain objects.
I think that's crucial.
Because market forces will eventually level out yield rates, but if yield assets can continuously be issued, circulated, and combined, then what the protocol accumulates isn't just users but a foundational set of rules. In my view, uniBTC and brBTC are more of a validation of this rule set rather than standalone products.
So looking at $BR now, I'm less interested in data fluctuations over a period and more focused on whether this yield rights framework can continue to expand. If more yield assets can operate under a similar logic in the future, then what @Bedrock connects might not just be BTC yields, but a larger network of yield assets.
#Bedrock $BR