#BTC对标贵金属的竞争格局 [Bitcoin's Dual Identification: The Evolution from Pure Store of Value to Yield Generation]

In the cryptocurrency market for so many years, our positioning of Bitcoin has basically been two words - store of value. The label "digital gold" has been firmly attached, as if Bitcoin's mission is to just lie in wallets and appreciate. However, after recently seeing some practices of DeFi protocols, I suddenly realized a problem: why can't we allow Bitcoin to maintain its store of value attribute while also continuously generating cash flow?

There is an interesting idea – through a universal collateral mechanism, Bitcoin has achieved a new "dual utility". Let me explain in detail:

**Technical creativity**

The core logic is very clear, which is to layer the value of Bitcoin:

The first layer is the trust layer. Your BTC is directly deposited as a top-tier credit asset, completely safe and intact, equivalent to placing the hardest asset in the safest place. This is not some fancy cross-chain bridging or complex derivatives; it is simply using Bitcoin itself as the credit anchor.

The second layer is the stability layer. It generates a stablecoin pegged to the US dollar based on an over-collateralization mechanism, providing your asset portfolio with a volatility buffer. During market surges and crashes, holding a portion of stablecoins can help maintain rationality.

The third layer is the income layer. Stablecoins are further staked and converted into income-generating tokens, forming an automated income mechanism. In simple terms, your Bitcoin no longer lies idle; it works continuously in the background for you—capturing strategic opportunities in the market and generating continuous income.

These three layers stacked together are like equipping Bitcoin with a financial operating system.

**New Imagination of Governance and Rights**

If there are governance tokens involved, what can the holders obtain?

- The decision-making power of the system rules. Voting determines how the protocol evolves and in what direction it develops, and this sense of participation is indeed different.
- Profit-sharing rights. The profits generated by the system are not monopolized by a centralized entity, but are distributed to governance participants.
- Ecological priority. When new tools are launched and opportunities are released, those with participation rights can access them earlier.

This design adds a layer of "democracy" compared to a simple yield aggregator.

**Real Problems and Thoughts**

However, it must also be acknowledged that for this logic to truly work, several premises are needed:

First, the over-collateralization rate should be set reasonably. If it's too high, capital efficiency is low; if it's too low, systemic risk increases. This balance is difficult to grasp.

Second, the generation and redemption mechanism of stablecoins must be sufficiently transparent to enable users to truly believe in the promise of "stability." There have been historical instances of failures.

Third, the source of interest income must be clearly stated. Is it from lending interest? Is it from transaction fee sharing? Or something else? The more diverse the sources, the better.

**An interesting question**

If Bitcoin can really play both roles of "the cornerstone of value storage" and "the engine of continuous returns" at the same time, what changes will this bring to investors' asset allocation?

My intuitive feeling is:

- Institutional investors will be more interested. Because their portfolio does indeed lack an asset that can both preserve value and generate cash flow.
- Individual coin holders will also have new choices. They no longer have to choose between "long-term holding" and "trading arbitrage"; instead, they can have both.
- It may attract a group of investors who are interested in DeFi but risk-averse. They can see the entire mechanism's operation on the chain, but with the protection of over-collateralization.

The narrative of Bitcoin is indeed evolving—from a mere "store of value" to approaching a "wealth creation machine." In this process, various innovative protocols are trying new combinations. Some have succeeded, while others have failed; this is the market conducting its own selection.

What do you think about this direction? Do you believe that this dual utility design is a real demand or an over-design?