With this matter, it makes me feel that we can't continue to build this Web3!

The issue of "fake TVL" needs further explanation!

The post (quoted article) that Pipi posted during the day has a wide impact, which may have caused some misunderstandings and unnecessary concerns. It needs to be explained.

Originally, it was written for some technically possible paths for the situation of "TVL that signs but does not transfer Bitcoin", but as Xiaoyu said, Bitcoin needs to be transferred in the way of counting TVL.

Speaking of the caliber of TVL statistics, Pipi checked the official data panels, DeFiLlama data dashboards and Dune data dashboards of several projects, and studied the code of the Dune panel. The statistical methods of several well-known projects are indeed the total amount of Bitcoin on the relevant chains. Although there are differences in the TVL data of several platforms, they are very small and can be ignored.

This can confirm Xiaoyu's statement, that is, the TVL that can be checked on the chain is the on-chain TVL.

After saying this, let's talk about the "TVL that signs but does not transfer Bitcoin" that everyone said, which should also be technically feasible.

The implementation logic is to verify whether the corresponding relationship between "Bitcoin account", "UTXO ownership signature" and "corresponding UTXO has not been consumed" exists. If it exists, it can be understood as valid.

The signature information of UTXO ownership can be generated multiple times. As long as these signatures are not broadcast on the chain, they cannot be falsified. If there is no secondary verification on the chain, and the bitcoins represented by this part of the UTXO ownership signature are included in the TVL or this part of the signature that is considered to have real bitcoins is used to generate secondary packaged bitcoins on other chains, there will be fake TVL.

This should be the "fake TVL" of "TVL of signing but not transferring bitcoins" that is most discussed today.

🔔 But as Pipi said, it is theoretically feasible, but it does not mean that there are really projects doing this, and the logic is not necessarily correct. The two posts are not aimed at any project, but only discuss the feasibility of the technology.