2026-01-14 19:55:30

Institutional investors are rethinking the value appreciation logic of Bitcoin. Locking BTC in exchange for governance rights while earning stable returns — this approach is being adopted by more and more large investors.

Unlike traditional lending platforms, this model abandons leverage operations. An annualized return of over 4% may not sound exaggerated, but the key is that it is entirely based on on-chain settlement, with no risk premium from intermediaries. Your assets remain fully controllable, and the returns are transparent.

Participating in ecosystem governance also has additional significance — not only can you influence protocol development decisions, but you can also gain more say in value distribution. For institutions pursuing steady returns, this is more attractive than simply holding tokens passively. Safe, transparent, and participatory — this is what institutional-grade asset allocation should look like.

BTC-0,5%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

12 Likes

Reward
12
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MetaverseLandlord

· 15h ago

Hmm... Does 4% annualized return still feel like it's not as good as the activities I participated in before? --- I've seen through this logic a long time ago; it's just turning holding tokens into participating in games. The institutions are bored. --- A combination of governance rights +收益, in essence, still betting on ecosystem development, and the risks haven't disappeared. --- On-chain settlement transparency is good, but the premise is to believe that this ecosystem is truly reliable. --- Major players are all using this method, so do small investors still have a chance... --- Abandoning leverage might actually be more stable? Without leverage, can the returns really be competitive? --- Feels a bit like rebranding staking, just for the sake of participating in governance.

View OriginalReply0

TopEscapeArtist

· 01-14 23:55

Looking at the technical aspect, this wave of governance empowerment indeed breaks the traditional hold-and-chat approach. A 4% annualized rate sounds moderate, but the on-chain settlement risk premium... I have to admit I didn't expect this when I bought in at a high point. Has the MACD golden cross occurred? The key still depends on the actual liquidity of the ecosystem—don't fall into another head and shoulders trap.

View OriginalReply0

RektDetective

· 01-14 20:25

Sounds good, but is 4% really enough? A rising coin price is the real king --- Again locking coins for governance, I feel like I've seen this trick before... --- On-chain settlement transparency I believe in, but what about protocol risk? No one mentions this part --- It's time for institutions to scoop up the bottom, the signal is here --- Steady returns sound comfortable, but I'm worried about the ecosystem collapsing and losing everything overnight --- So basically, it's still a gamble on whether this chain will last long enough, right? --- Is it truly decentralized, or just a different way to cut the leeks? --- 4% isn't as good as my current staking, what's the advantage? --- Wait, what's the difference between this and those yield farms before? --- Institutions are hoarding governance rights, while retail investors are still debating ups and downs. The gap is too big

View OriginalReply0

LightningPacketLoss

· 01-14 20:25

Does a 4% return sound so conservative? Are big players all using this approach?

View OriginalReply0

IntrovertMetaverse

· 01-14 20:24

4% annualized return? Sounds pretty good, but I'm worried it might just be another scheme to cut leeks. --- Institutions are starting to play governance rights arbitrage. Could this be just a new guise for a Ponzi scheme? --- I believe in on-chain settlement transparency, but who can guarantee that the protocol itself won't rug pull? --- Basically, it's big players banding together for mutual protection. As retail investors, we still have to look at their faces. --- A steady return sounds comfortable, but have the risks really been digested? Feels like they're just storytelling again. --- Locking tokens for governance rights seems like institutions are covertly manipulating the market. This logic is a bit convoluted.

View OriginalReply0

consensus_whisperer

· 01-14 20:18

Is 4% annualized return really attractive enough? Feels not as good as I imagined. --- And it's that set of "transparent and controllable" claims... but what's the reality? --- Institutions are trying new ways to buy the dip, while retail investors are still debating whether to buy or not. --- Governance rights sound impressive, but in the end, it's still the big players who call the shots. --- Locking coins for returns, I just want to know how's the liquidity. --- This is the right approach, better than risking your life with leverage. --- 4% stable return? The crypto world is full of crap, we're just waiting to be educated. --- Have big institutions finally found a way to avoid cutting the leeks? --- I'll just watch quietly; anyway, I have no capital to participate in this game.

View OriginalReply0

PessimisticLayer

· 01-14 20:15

It's the same old story... It sounds nice, but on-chain settlement can't guarantee no risk either. Stable returns sound like the night before the next Luna😅

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerAirdrop

· 01-14 19:59

It's the same old story. Locking tokens for governance sounds good, but do institutions really play it so honestly? Wait, a 4% annual yield is fine as long as it's transparent on-chain. Why does it feel like no one has really assessed the risks? I'm a bit tempted, but I'll wait and see who crashes first.

View OriginalReply0

MetaNomad

· 01-14 19:59

Wait, 4% annualized yield only attracts institutions? If this were in the outside crypto world, they'd be laughing to death already haha

View OriginalReply0