It looks interesting, I have a couple of questions initially.
1- When a BTC holders stake with Cosmos validator, will they get the Native Atom staking rewards? if yes at what rate? If not, Why would BTC holder stake their BTC because ICS in the last year hasn’t earned an attractive yield for validators or delegators?
2- Will the BTC staker have the right to vote on HUB’s governance proposals? I think that isn’t the case but if it is only 2% of BTC is enough to take over the HUB. (1BTC = 3000 Atom)
From our understanding, we would take this quote at the end of the topic:
This economy will be driven by the consumer chains’ willingness to use this security feature or not. Those deciding to use it will have to decide how much portion of their reward “bucket” they want to allocate. For example this could be 75-15-10% between the chain, Cosmos Hub, and BTC stakers. Noting that if the final implementation decides to pay BTC holders in ATOM, a swap to atom will have to be performed from the rewards into ATOM.
We should also note that a small tax will be deducted from BTC Stakers’ share to compensate for the Hub’s services.
Weve recently launched a vault between interlay and bitcoin on Polkadot. I would defo suggest to see what they have in that direction open sourced already
Thank for you @serejandmyself for the vault.
Here is my current view , it can change with market condition later.
Let say , imagine a example to illustrate few use cases :
If you are a Ukrainian businessman seeking to protect your wealth because the front Line’s moving closer to you do you buy property in London that you’re never going to live in that you’re going to have to maintain and you’ve got friction getting rid of it and so on do you buy a bunch of gold bars you’ve got to store in a vault um proof kyc , Etc do you buy a home in Monaco, a factory unit in Nevada or do you just go and buy some Bitcoin on the basis that you can always offload the Bitcoin and receive any other currency later.
While Bitcoin has been viewed as rigid, emerging technologies like tap root upgrades and rollups could unlock new avenues for developers to build innovative applications on the protocol. This shift in utility could drive increased institutional and retail demand.
Limitations of previous Bitcoin scaling solutions, like lightning’s channel rebalancing challenges, have created a void that rollup-based approaches seem poised to fill. These layer-2 constructions could facilitate sophisticated DeFi primitives and automated market makers on Bitcoin.
Astute market makers should monitor projects like Chainway Labs and Babylons, which are bridging Bitcoin’s base layer and demand for flexible, composable infrastructure. Providing liquidity across this evolving ecosystem could be a lucrative opportunity for firms ahead of the curve.
Bitcoin’s perceived rigidity may give way to a more modular future. Savvy quant traders should position themselves for this transformation by staying attuned to technical and regulatory developments in the space. My opinion may change and evolve over time. Thank you @serejandmyself and everyone. Appreciate
During Babylon’s presentation of their project, an intriguing possibility was highlighted: the potential to reduce the unbonding period for ATOM stakers significantly. While the exact duration escapes my memory (I believe it was mentioned to be either 1 day or 1 hour), this proposal raises some pertinent considerations.
Reducing the unbonding period to such a short timeframe may pose risks for average users. A cursory glance at online forums like Reddit reveals numerous instances of wallet hacking and subsequent asset unstaking. The current 21-day unbonding period serves as a buffer, providing affected individuals ample time to seek assistance from the community, such as the cosmosrescue team, and remedy the situation. However, with a drastically reduced unbonding period, there arises the possibility of unsuspecting users falling victim to rapid asset depletion before even realizing the breach.
One potential solution to mitigate these concerns could be to offer stakers the option to choose a longer unbonding period. This customizable feature not only empowers users to tailor their staking experience to their preferences but also introduces incentives, as opting for a lengthier unbonding period can be interpreted as a display of commitment to the network.
I prefer to think of the long unbonding period as a commitment to MY own security.
The desire to cut the unbonding period comes from high frequency trading professional investors who want to be able to move money around without waiting in order to reduce their financial risk. For them liquid staking was created.
For retail users, 2 or 3 week unbonding period gives them ample ability to discover if their wallet has been tampered with and cancel the unbonding transactions thus thwarting hackers. I think once people understand that the time lock actually enhances the security of their holdings, they won’t mind it. By comparison, a US treasury is locked for minimum 4 weeks. 4 week lockup in tradfi is considered “cash”.
Take note that at present, a hacker could swiftly access staked funds using LSM functionality, effectively leaving the user with an empty account. However, users can take action to disable LSM on their account, with reactivation requiring a 21-day waiting period. This is currently the most secure method to prevent fund leakage. We’re preparing a detailed security guide to outline this process. Please note that wallet providers do not currently support this type of transaction, but we’re actively working to change this and will keep the community updated.
