Abstract
Dual-token systems often fail due to unclear role separation. This post explains why ValoraBTC enforces strict functional boundaries between its two tokens.
The problem with single-token designs
When a single token is used for:
- Governance
- Fees
- Incentives
- Settlement guarantees
It becomes subject to conflicting pressures that weaken system stability.
VLBTC: economic participation
VLBTC exists to:
- Represent long-term ecosystem alignment
- Enable governance decisions
- Incentivize infrastructure growth
Properties:
- Fixed supply: 21,000,000
- No minting after genesis
- No automatic dilution
VLBTC does not secure settlement directly.
VLCOR: operational coordination
VLCOR exists solely to:
- Mirror BTC entering the protocol
- Enable routing and settlement logic
- Align validators and coordinators
Properties:
- Minted and burned 1:1 with BTC
- No independent monetary policy
- Not marketed
VLCOR is not a value storage asset.
Why this matters
By separating:
- Value capture from operational mechanics
- Speculation risk from settlement safety
ValoraBTC reduces systemic feedback loops that often destabilize DeFi protocols.
Design tradeoff
This model sacrifices simplicity for clarity.
Clarity was chosen intentionally.
Links:
https://valorabtc.com
https://bscscan.com/token/0xaC4341f48875FD0cbF46FF23D12Ebf5df7Fa7020
https://github.com/ValoraBTC/valorabtc-protocol
https://x.com/ValoraBTC
https://paragraph.com/@valorabtc/valorabtc-a-bitcoin-liquidity-routing-and-settlement-protocol
Top comments (0)