Reliance on custody? Isn't this contrary to the spirit of Bitcoin?
The original intention of Bitcoin is "decentralized self-custody," but BounceBit hands over assets to custodians. Isn't this going backwards? It seems contradictory, but in reality, it's a clever compromise to deal with the situation.
There hasn't been a mature pure decentralized BTC yield solution yet. Either there are frequent security vulnerabilities, or the entry barriers are too high to engage with. BounceBit takes a step back: using compliant custody to solve the "safe storage of coins" issue, and then using on-chain operations to address the "transparent profit-making" issue.
Of course, this means you have to trust the custodian, which indeed has a gap compared to "absolute decentralization." But from another perspective, the trillion-level BTC funds can't just lie idle forever—rather than letting them sleep in wallets, it’s better to activate value through this compromise. At least for now, this is the most feasible path for BTC to be stored safely while also generating returns, which is much more practical than talking about "decentralization" without making any money.
