Does Bitcoin need an ecosystem? My answer is yes.

But frankly speaking, within the Bitcoin community’s priority consensus, building the Bitcoin ecosystem is considered an important but not urgent matter compared to Bitcoin ETFs and Bitcoin strategic reserves in this cycle. However, for developers and VCs, building the Bitcoin ecosystem is both important and urgent in this cycle. They are eager to leverage new technological primitives like BitVM and ZK, as well as push for the reactivation of the Bitcoin mainnet OP-Cat opcode to address the following two “holy grail” real-world issues:

– How can Bitcoin regain control of the crypto narrative after “Satoshi’s vision” was constrained by the positioning of Bitcoin as “digital gold”?

– How to maintain the Bitcoin consensus budget level after the Bitcoin block reward is halved again?

In the fierce competition among Bitcoin ecosystem projects to solve these two “holy grail” real-world problems, three major projects have emerged: Nubit, Babylon, and Bitlayer, each claiming to bring salvation to Bitcoin.

Nubit, together with miners from the Satoshi era, Bitcoin whales, and BRC20 Domo, jointly initiated a soft fork to address Bitcoin’s scalability issue. Babylon, on the other hand, promotes Bitcoin’s economic security under the banner of Bitcoin ReStaking. Bitlayer is keen on bringing the prosperity of EVM to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

On the surface, these three projects all aim to solve Bitcoin’s scalability and programmability issues, but a deeper analysis reveals that their technical paths, security mechanisms, and attitudes toward Bitcoin’s original ideals are entirely different. This is not just a technical dispute; it is a philosophical battle over Bitcoin.

Native vs Borrowed Power: Three Distinct Technical Paths

Nubit chooses a purely native Bitcoin approach. Together with OG miners, Bitcoin whales, and BRC20 Domo, it launched Bitcoin Thunderbolt on April 15. Bitcoin Thunderbolt was hailed by HSBC in an official announcement as “the most milestone Bitcoin technical upgrade in the past decade.” Through a soft fork, Bitcoin Thunderbolt introduces the OP_CAT opcode and achieves UTXO Bundling, improving the Bitcoin main chain’s throughput without sacrificing decentralization.

In contrast, Babylon and Bitlayer have opted for a “curve-saving” approach. Babylon, relying on the Cosmos ecosystem, has built a cross-chain staking system that allows BTC holders to lock their assets and participate in PoS consensus. Bitlayer, on the other hand, chose to directly transplant Ethereum’s EVM, focusing on providing the Bitcoin ecosystem with a familiar Solidity development environment.

The three paths reflect different philosophical views: Nubit insists on “Bitcoin maximalism,” believing that all scalability should happen on the Bitcoin main chain; Babylon takes a compromise route, attempting to merge Bitcoin with the Cosmos ecosystem; Bitlayer fully embraces the Ethereum paradigm, hoping to replicate Ethereum’s success.

Security and Decentralization: Who is Closer to Satoshi’s Vision?

From a security perspective, Nubit relies on Bitcoin’s PoW consensus on the mainnet. Transactions are verified on-chain without the need for external trusted third parties, inheriting Bitcoin’s security features. The Nubit team has published five papers on OP_CAT and UTXO Bundling at top academic conferences such as S&P, Crypto, and USENIX, and the security of Nubit’s scaling solution has been recognized by the academic community.

Babylon adopts a hybrid PoS + BTC timestamp security model. By introducing BTC Staking and Restaking mechanisms to enhance economic security and using BTC timestamps to guard against long-range attacks, Babylon Genesis’ mainnet achieved security far beyond other PoS chains right from its inception. However, due to the lack of quantifiable standards to measure the incremental value of economic security to blockchain networks, some members of the crypto community, during the Solana governance disputes, supported the view that “economic security is a meme.” In fact, in EigenLayer’s practice, the economic security resold by AVS is only used in applications like oracle networks, data availability (DA), and cross-chain bridge relayers, not to ensure the safety of large-scale on-chain assets. It’s highly likely that Babylon’s BNS will replicate EigenLayer AVS’s development path.

Bitlayer’s security model is more centralized, relying on multi-signature consortiums and PoS mechanisms. It has not yet fully integrated Bitcoin mainnet security. More concerning is that 97% of its BTC forms are centralized WBTC, heavily relying on third-party custodians, which is far from Bitcoin’s core philosophy of “trustlessness and self-sovereignty.”

Asset Forms and Ecosystem Compatibility: Who Can Truly Serve Bitcoin Users?

In terms of asset compatibility, the three projects show clear differences. Nubit supports native Bitcoin assets such as BRC20 inscriptions and runes for direct trading, without the need for cross-chain or wrapping. This means that users holding these assets can seamlessly participate in the Nubit ecosystem without incurring cross-chain risks.

In contrast, both Babylon and Bitlayer do not support native Bitcoin network assets. Users must first bridge or wrap BTC before they can use these platforms, which not only increases operational complexity but also introduces additional cross-chain risks.

For example, if you hold BRC20 tokens or rune assets, you can directly use them on Nubit; however, on Babylon or Bitlayer, you may not be able to use these assets at all, or you may need to go through a complex bridging process—similar to having Alipay and WeChat, but visiting a Hong Kong local restaurant that only accepts Visa cards or Octopus payments.

Community Governance and Transparency: Decentralization or Capital Control?

The community governance models also reflect the core values of the projects. Nubit adopts an open-source and transparent approach, with protocol evolution driven by multiple parties rather than a single entity. Its Boosting Code fair distribution mechanism has an open and transparent entry threshold, treating all participants equally. Several ecosystem projects and mining pools (such as Mining Squared Pool) have already joined the testing phase, with clear co-building attributes.

In contrast, Babylon’s governance is relatively centralized, with capital holding the upper hand. Its closed development path, opaque off-chain logic, and high community entry barriers make it more of a VC-led project rather than a protocol truly driven by the community.

As for Bitlayer, its consortium governance structure and limited community involvement, along with its undisclosed multi-signature bridge and opaque asset flows, raise doubts about its degree of decentralization. The project seems to focus more on replicating the EVM ecosystem rather than truly serving the Bitcoin user base.

Development trajectory and future prospects

Judging from the current development trajectory, Nubit jointly promotes and supports Bitcoin Thunderbolt with OG miners, Bitcoin whales, and Domo. It emphasizes the method of solving the expansion problem natively on the Bitcoin main chain, which is highly consistent with Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision.

Babylon is more of a VC-led project, and there have been questions in the community about its profit-seeking orientation, especially on issues such as Idle TVL and large-scale divestment after airdrops. Although its cross-chain staking model is innovative, its native integration with Bitcoin is limited.

Bitlayer is more like trying to capitalize on the popularity of BTC to build an EVM project. Its community is mainly composed of “hair-raising parties” and is far away from the fundamental narrative of Bitcoin. While its EVM compatibility may appeal to Ethereum developers, the actual contribution of this approach to the Bitcoin ecosystem remains to be proven.

Conclusion: The Crossroads of Bitcoin’s Technological Evolution

At the crossroads of Bitcoin’s technological evolution, we see three distinct paths: Nubit represents native scaling and adherence to Bitcoin’s values; Babylon embodies cross-chain integration and the pursuit of capital efficiency; Bitlayer showcases a pragmatic choice of copying successful models.

For professional crypto investors, this is not just a technical decision but a choice of values. Do you believe Bitcoin should stay true to its original ideals, or do you think cross-chain integration is the future? Do you prioritize native security, or are you willing to accept a compromise to gain more functionality?

Saints focus on principles, while ordinary people focus on outcomes. Different choices will lead to different results. We must tread carefully, ensuring we stand on the side of crypto’s historical justice.

Disclaimer:

1. This article is reproduced from [NingNing], the copyright belongs to the original author [NingNing], if you have any objections to the reprint, please contact the Gate Learn team, and the team will handle it as soon as possible according to relevant procedures.

2. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article represent only the author’s personal views and do not constitute any investment advice.

3. Other language versions of the article are translated by the Gate Learn team and are not mentioned in Gate.io, the translated article may not be reproduced, distributed or plagiarized.