This is a very good question. In fact, I have talked with the#CKBteam many times about #BTCFi. In fact, not only CKB, but many#BTCsecond-layer networks or BTC ecosystems have discussed with me how to combine BTCFi and the #RGB++ protocol layer. After all, RGB++ is not only the asset issuance layer of the BTC network, but also the smart contract layer and UTXO operation layer of the BTC network. In layman's terms, through the RGB++ protocol, native assets can be issued on BTC like #Ethereum, and assets can participate in various BTCFi gameplays without the risk of centralized bridges. This is an advantage that other BTC protocols do not have at present.
For BTCFi, the essence of providing liquidity to BTC is to run off-chain, which is currently impossible to handle on-chain. After all, assets need to be packaged and mapped to the chain through off-chain audits. Therefore, for the chain itself, an important aspect is the issuance of assets, and another aspect is whether assets can be easily exchanged.
According to the BTCFi I designed, there are three native assets on the chain, including stBTC, stMSTR and stIBIT. The latter two are mapped assets, and the first stBTC can actually be replaced by the native asset of #BTC. This is the biggest application of native assets at the chain level, because the#BTCFiI made may only be a small part of the big BTC ecosystem. When SAB121 is passed, BTC can be mortgaged and loaned in mainstream banks in the United States, so there will be a variety of ways to play with BTC-based mortgage assets. Obviously, RGB++ is one of the options for issuing such assets. From the data on the chain, since the release of RGB++ this year, the issuance of assets has increased by 5.7 times month-on-month.
Specifically speaking of the gameplay, for example, BANK-BTC derived from bank mortgage notes is actually a "cross-chain application" of BTC. This kind of BTC pledged on the chain is actually equivalent to native BTC, and what's more, through BANK-BTC assets can be turned into native BTC mortgage loans, which can generate interest. This method can really bring benefits to the native #Bitcoiin. And most importantly, BTCFi's assets are not completely realized by price swaps, but need to be realized through the "transaction intention" method to ensure that each St asset has a minimum capital anchor to avoid de-anchoring.
In addition to mortgage lending, stablecoins are also a kind of issuance scheme. Through BANK-BTC, stablecoins based on bank assets can be issued. The value of stablecoins is equal to the native BTC pledged in the bank. This method actually helps to issue stablecoins through BTC, and the subject of stablecoins is proved by banks. This kind of stablecoin assets will be the most important stablecoins in the blockchain world in the future. At present, RGB++ already has a stablecoin USDI backed by short-term US Treasury bonds, and also has a protocol Stable++ for pledging BTC to issue stablecoins.
In addition, the RGB++ protocol also has the ability to issue assets on multiple chains at the same time, which may not be useful to me for the time being, but may be of great use to other BTCFi. For BTC, the most important thing about a protocol is not cross-chain assets, but how to build a comprehensive asset application-based support around BTC. In the system I designed that combines BTC and the traditional banking system, facing the needs of high concurrency and security and privacy, CKB Lightning Network Fiber, which can support various RGB++ assets, undoubtedly further expands the ceiling of the BTCFi track.
The second half of the BTC ecosystem will inevitably have native protocols. From the process of a hundred schools of thought to unified integration, which one is safer and more useful? From the perspective of BTCFi, from the perspective of technical native advantages, development efficiency progress, infrastructure completeness, team resource investment, etc., CKB's RGB++ is very competitive and worth looking forward to.
