2026-01-08 08:27:22

I recently came across an interesting funding news — a well-known venture capital firm invested $15 million into a project aimed at enabling native Bitcoin to directly serve as a trustless on-chain collateral. At first glance, it might not seem like a big deal, but upon further reflection, it could shake up quite a few people's perceptions.

What is the current situation? If you want Bitcoin to participate in lending and derivatives trading on Ethereum or other chains, most often it involves wrapping tokens — for example, a universal Bitcoin token. This process involves custodians, risk confirmation, and other steps, which can be somewhat unsatisfactory. If native BTC could be directly collateralized, it would mean users could lock Bitcoin into smart contracts and directly exchange for other assets, significantly reducing intermediary risks. For those who dislike the risks associated with traditional tokens, this is indeed an enticing idea.

But good ideas are always easier to imagine than to realize. There are several unavoidable issues in reality. First, the technical solution has not been fully disclosed; who can guarantee that no security vulnerabilities will appear during implementation? Second, what about regulation? Once smart contracts that directly manipulate native Bitcoin go live, will regulatory authorities in certain regions consider them as some form of regulated financial product? Third, will the market actually accept it? Will users accustomed to the current ecosystem migrate over, or are competitors already working on similar solutions?

From a broader perspective, if this path truly succeeds, Bitcoin's positioning might undergo subtle changes — not just as a digital asset itself, but also as a foundational collateral in the financial ecosystem. However, such innovations often come with risks. Are people willing to entrust their BTC to such a new system? The answer probably varies from person to person.

BTC-1,82%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

21 Likes

Reward
21
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropSweaterFan

· 01-11 03:17

Honestly, it's another story that looks very beautiful. Pouring $15 million to solve the native BTC issue, how can they pass the regulatory hurdle? The technical loopholes are not the biggest concern; the real problem is... who dares to be the first to take the plunge and lock the coins? Another project aiming to disrupt the ecosystem, but in the end, it still can't escape the fate of being eroded by existing interest groups. Lower the intermediary risk? Wake up, the risk is just hiding somewhere else. If this really happens, BTC will no longer be BTC, but a stepping stone for financial Lego. But on the other hand, this direction is indeed a bit interesting, just the timing isn't quite right.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainGriller

· 01-09 05:08

In simple terms, this is an attempt to break the wbtc gatekeeping business. It sounds exciting, but who can guarantee that the smart contract has no bugs? I don't trust new systems with my btc; self-custody is still the most comfortable. Will investing 15 million change the current situation? It seems that once regulation steps in, everything will cool down. Whether native btc collateralization will be popular depends on whether users are willing to migrate. People used to the current system are too lazy to bother. However, if it can truly eliminate middlemen, that would be great, but I'm worried about the technology being insufficient. It's another idealistic plan with a lot of pitfalls waiting in reality. Loans and derivatives are already risky, and adding a new system? I think I'll hold steady.

View OriginalReply0

New_Ser_Ngmi

· 01-08 09:50

Rushing to move BTC's cheese with 15 million is too naive. --- Not disclosing the technical plan to raise so much money does feel a bit like playing with fire. --- Again, trustless and direct collateralization sounds like the next target for attacks. --- Wrapped tokens, even if they're trash, are still safer than locking real BTC into unknown contracts. --- Don't count on passing regulation; a failed approval is almost certain. --- If it were really feasible, someone would have done it already. The fact that they're still raising funds says a lot. --- I just want to know how I can get my BTC back if I run away. --- Another attempt to change BTC's positioning? Why bother? Isn't it good as digital gold? --- I'd rather wait for others to test the waters with this new system; I'm not in a rush anyway.

View OriginalReply0

GrayscaleArbitrageur

· 01-08 08:57

This technology sounds good, but who will fill the pit of those security vulnerabilities? It's not the first time. --- 15 million just to get it done? I think it's a joke; regulators have already been watching. --- It's always about trustless, I'm tired of hearing this word. When something goes wrong, won't we still have to find a custodial provider? --- Basically, they want to kill the business of those wbtc guys, but will users really switch? The unknown risks are even more frightening. --- Native BTC directly on-chain collateralization sounds appealing, but I still prefer to hold my coins tightly for peace of mind. --- Wait, will this thing be directly banned by regulatory authorities in some countries once it goes live? It seems very unlikely. --- Competitors are definitely working on it too. The question is who can survive until the end, it's not just about having more money. --- Reducing the risk of middlemen? Haha, just a different way to cut leeks. --- I'm optimistic about this direction, but how long will it take to implement? Something always feels just a bit missing. --- The positioning of BTC has changed, but it doesn't matter; the ecosystem has evolved this way anyway.

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseVagabond

· 01-08 08:56

Investing $15 million to break the middleman monopoly—yet who dares to guarantee safety? I still hold my coins firmly for peace of mind. Honestly, it's a trust issue. Until full technical disclosure is made, I won't trust anyone. There have been enough lessons from history. Native BTC collateralization sounds great, but the key is how regulators will react on the day it goes live. You know the tactics used in certain regions. Is smart contract just another vampire contract? Anyway, I'll wait and see. Let others be the guinea pigs. If it really happens, BTC's story could go on for another ten years, but the risks are truly unknown. Who can guarantee 100% that there are no vulnerabilities? The existing user ecosystem is so sticky that even the best new solutions will struggle to shake it. Competitors are probably also brewing big moves. The ideal of trustless systems sounds great, but in reality, someone always wants to cut you. Staying skeptical is safer. BTC becoming a collateral for loans truly changes its positioning. Feels a bit unfortunate? Let it be what it is—digital gold.

View OriginalReply0

MetaMisfit

· 01-08 08:55

Is pouring 15 million to shake the entire ecosystem? I doubt it. The technology hasn't even been disclosed yet, and they're already hyping it up. Security vulnerabilities are truly a nightmare. Who dares to be the first to take the plunge? No one can control the regulatory game, that's the biggest problem. User migration costs are too high. The existing wrapped tokens are rotten, but at least they're familiar poison. Don't be fooled by the big headlines about fundraising; real implementation is still far away. BTC itself is complex enough, and I really can't trust adding a DeFi layer on top. Feels like just hype about concepts. Let's wait and see. These VC guys love to promote so-called "revolutionary" projects. And what happens? Most of them turn into outdated news. Native staking sounds appealing, but my wallet won't lie to me—risk is always present.

View OriginalReply0

ShibaMillionairen't

· 01-08 08:53

It's the same old story. Native BTC collateral sounds great, but I still think the risks are terrifying. The real question is who will take the blame if the code bugs out. 15 million just isn't enough to handle this kind of thing, brother. Wrapped BTC is annoying, but at least I know where the risks are. As for this new thing... Once a big whale's BTC gets locked up, it'll be quite a show.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-00be86fc

· 01-08 08:53

Is this another ender of pump-and-dump coins? Let's wait until the technical solutions are truly implemented. It's a bit early to tell stories now.

View OriginalReply0

WalletInspector

· 01-08 08:30

15 million dollars just to shake up the entire lending market? Let's get the security audit done first. Last time I saw projects like this, I learned to be skeptical. --- Native BTC collateral sounds great, but I'm more concerned about who is holding the code... What about regulation? --- Another "decentralized" story, but in the end, you still have to trust a team. It's laughable—it's just the same old story with a different coat of paint. --- Honestly, current wrapped BTC users are used to it. Why should I migrate to a new system? What's the risk? --- Raising 15 million without disclosing the technical plan... That move is a bit ruthless, but it’s very Web3. --- If zero-trust collateralization is truly achieved, it would be a real shock to the existing DeFi ecosystem, but only if no bugs are found. --- Using Bitcoin as the underlying collateral? Sounds impressive, but will the market buy into it? Or is this just another narrative hype? --- I just want to know, compared to Stacks or other cross-chain solutions, what are the advantages of this scheme?

View OriginalReply0