Which one is more "just" among Nubit, Babylon and Bitlayer?

Author: NingNing Source: X, @0xNing0x

Does Bitcoin need an ecosystem? My answer is yes.

But frankly speaking, in the Bitcoin community’s consensus on priority sorting, compared with Bitcoin ETF and Bitcoin strategic reserve, the construction of Bitcoin ecosystem is an important but not urgent matter in this cycle. But for developers and VCs, the construction of the Bitcoin ecosystem is an important and urgent matter in this cycle. They urgently need to use new technical primitives such as BitVM and ZK and promote the reactivation of the Bitcoin mainnet OP-Cat operation code to solve the following two “holy grail” real-world problems: – How can Bitcoin regain the sovereignty of cryptographic narrative after the “Satoshi Vision” was positioned 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 for the solutions to the above two “holy grail” real-world problems, three major projects such as Nubit, Babylon and Bitlayer have emerged, and each claims that it can bring salvation to Bitcoin.

Nubit, together with Nakamoto-era miners, Bitcoin whales, and BRC20 Domo, jointly initiated a soft fork to solve the Bitcoin expansion problem; Babylon resold the economic security of Bitcoin under the banner of Bitcoin ReStaking; Bitlayer is keen to introduce the prosperity of EVM into the Bitcoin ecosystem.

On the surface, these three projects are all aimed at solving the problems of Bitcoin expansion and programmability, but after in-depth analysis, it is found that their technical paths, security mechanisms, and attitudes towards Bitcoin fundamentalism are completely different. This is not only a technical battle, but also a battle of Bitcoin philosophy.

1. Native vs. Leverage: Three Completely Different Technical Paths

Nubit chose the pure Bitcoin native route. The Bitcoin Thunderbolt (Bitcoin Thunderbolt Network) jointly initiated by Nubit, OG miners, Bitcoin whales, and BRC20 Domo was officially launched on April 15. Bitcoin Thunderbolt was described by HSBC in its official news as "the most milestone technology upgrade of Bitcoin in the past decade". Bitcoin Thunderbolt introduces OP_CAT opcodes and implements UTXO Bundling through soft forks, which improves the throughput capacity of the Bitcoin main chain without sacrificing decentralization.

In contrast, Babylon and Bitlayer chose the "curve to save the country" approach. Relying on the Cosmos ecosystem, Babylon built a cross-chain staking system that allows BTC holders to lock their assets and participate in the PoS consensus. Bitlayer simply chose to transplant Ethereum's EVM and focus on providing a familiar Solidity development environment for the Bitcoin ecosystem.

These three paths reflect different philosophical views: Nubit adheres to "Bitcoin maximalism" and believes that all expansion should occur on the Bitcoin main chain; Babylon takes a compromise route and tries to integrate Bitcoin with the Cosmos ecosystem; Bitlayer fully embraces the Ethereum paradigm and hopes to replicate Ethereum's successful experience.

2. Security and decentralization: Who is closer to Satoshi Nakamoto's vision?

From the perspective of security, Nubit relies on the PoW consensus of the Bitcoin mainnet, and transactions are verified on the chain without relying on an external trusted third party, which makes it inherit the security features of Bitcoin. The Nubit team has published 5 papers on OP_CAT and UTXO Bundling at top academic conferences such as S&P, Crypto, and USENIX, and the security of Nubit's expansion plan has been recognized by the academic community.

Babylon adopts a hybrid PoS+BTC timestamp security model. Due to the introduction of BTC Staking and Restaking mechanisms to enhance economic security and BTC timestamps to prevent long-range attacks, the Babylon Genesis mainnet has achieved security far beyond other PoS chains since its birth. However, due to the lack of quantifiable standards to measure the incremental value of economic security to blockchain networks, in the Solana governance dispute, some people in the crypto community put forward the view that "economic security is a meme" and received a lot of support. In fact, in the practice of EigenLayer, the economic security of AVS resale is only used in application scenarios such as oracle networks, (data availability) DA, and cross-chain bridge Relayer, and is not used to ensure the security of bulk on-chain assets. It is highly likely that Babylon's BNS will replicate the development path of EigenLayer AVS.

Bitlayer's security model is more centralized, relying on the alliance multi-signature + PoS mechanism, and has not yet truly connected to the BTC main network security. What is more worthy of attention is that 97% of its BTC is in the form of centralized WBTC, which is heavily dependent on third-party custodians, which is far from the core concept of Bitcoin's "trustlessness and self-sovereignty".

3. Asset form and ecological compatibility: Who can truly serve Bitcoin users?

In terms of asset compatibility, the three projects also show obvious differences. Nubit supports direct transactions of native Bitcoin assets such as BRC20 inscriptions and runes without cross-chain or packaging. This means that users holding these assets can seamlessly participate in the Nubit ecosystem without having to bear cross-chain risks.

In contrast, Babylon and Bitlayer do not support native assets of the Bitcoin network. When using these two platforms, users must first bridge or package BTC before using it, which not only increases the complexity of operation, but also introduces additional cross-chain risks.

For example, if you hold BRC20 tokens or rune assets, you can use them directly on Nubit; on Babylon or Bitlayer, you may not be able to use these assets at all, or you may need to go through a complicated bridging procedure-it's like you have Alipay and WeChat, but go to a restaurant run by Hong Kong locals that only accepts Visa cards and Octopus payments.

4. Community governance and transparency: decentralization or capital control?

The community governance model also reflects the core values ​​of the project. Nubit adopts an open source and transparent approach, and the evolution of the protocol is driven by multiple parties, not owned by a single entity. Its Boosting Code fair distribution mechanism, open and transparent entry threshold, treats all participants equally. Many ecological projects and mining pools (such as Mining Squared Pool) have been connected for testing, and the co-construction attributes are clear.

Babylon's governance weight is relatively concentrated, and capital has an advantage. The closed development path and opaque off-chain logic, coupled with a high community entry threshold, make it more like a VC-led project rather than a truly community-driven protocol.

As for Bitlayer, its alliance governance structure and limited community participation, as well as its undisclosed multi-signature bridge and opaque asset flows, have all raised questions about its degree of decentralization. The project seems to be more focused on replicating the EVM ecosystem rather than truly serving the Bitcoin user community.

5. Development trajectory and future prospects

From the current development trajectory, Bitcoin Thunderbolt, which is jointly promoted and supported by Nubit, OG miners, Bitcoin whales, and Domo, emphasizes the method of natively solving the expansion problem 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 doubts in the community about its profit-seeking orientation, especially on issues such as Idle TVL and large-scale withdrawals after airdrops. Although its cross-chain staking model is innovative, its native integration with Bitcoin is limited.

Bitlayer is more like an attempt to use the popularity of BTC to make an EVM project. Its community is mainly composed of "money-pulling parties" and is far from the Bitcoin fundamentalist narrative. Although its EVM compatibility may attract Ethereum developers, the actual contribution of this approach to the Bitcoin ecosystem remains to be proven.

Conclusion: The crossroads of Bitcoin technology evolution

Standing at the crossroads of Bitcoin technology evolution, we see three completely different paths: Nubit represents native expansion and adherence to Bitcoin values; Babylon embodies the pursuit of cross-chain integration and capital efficiency; Bitlayer demonstrates a pragmatic choice of copying the successful model.

For professional crypto investors, this is not only a technical choice, but also a choice of values. Do you believe that Bitcoin should stick to its fundamentalism, or do you think cross-chain integration is the future? Do you pursue native security, or are you willing to accept a compromise route in exchange for more functions?

Saints value causes, while ordinary people value results. Different choices will produce different results. We must be cautious and ensure that we stand on the side of crypto historical justice.