BTC Boys Part 2: So what's the difference between LBTC and wBTC? Summary of Part 1 (Quoted text) - @babylonlabs_io provides the infrastructure to utilize Bitcoin as a PoS secure asset through staking. - @Lombard_Finance is a liquidity token platform that allows users to stake their deposited BTC in Babylon and liquidate it into $LBTC. However, this raises the question of how LBTC differs from wrapped/bridged Bitcoin like wBTC. The key is "Custody". The core technology that Babylon uses to implement Bitcoin staking is to lock it with a time-lock using Bitcoin scripts. While Bitcoin cannot support complex programming like smart contracts, it can impose simple conditions through scripts for transfers. Babylon does not receive the BTC staked by users; instead, it keeps the BTC in the staker's wallet and creates a UTXO with withdrawal conditions that are restricted based on a certain period or conditions (unstaking) that make it impossible to transfer. In simpler terms, those who stake through Babylon do not bridge their Bitcoin to Babylon but merely record that "this amount is currently staked" while keeping it in their own wallet. Therefore, even if Babylon fails, the time-lock will release the assets after a certain period, allowing them to be recovered. In contrast, wrapped assets like wBTC require the actual transfer of Bitcoin to a bridge wallet. This means the custody of the asset is transferred. In reality, no matter how much Babylon and Lombard emphasize their non-custodial nature, our Bitcoin maximalist brothers will never stake their assets in Babylon. I believe the market that Babylon and Lombard are trying to capture is not the Bitcoin that is safely stored in hardware wallets by Bitcoin maximalists, but rather the market of wrapped BTC like wBTC for DeFi. BTC wrapping through bridges is based on custody, which requires a single trust in the bridge, but Lombard's LBTC is non-custodial, so I believe it can sufficiently capture market share.