A Bitcoin vault connected to a separate glowing liquidation settlement channel

Aave’s Native Bitcoin Plan Still Depends on WBTC When Liquidations Hit

By Isaac • October 26, 2026 8:13 pm • Comments

Aave’s plan to let users borrow against native Bitcoin sounds like a clean break from wrapped assets. The liquidation engine tells a more complicated story.

CryptoSlate explains that Babylon’s proposal would keep a borrower’s collateral inside a Taproot-based vault on Bitcoin while Aave V4 recognizes a restricted accounting token inside a dedicated lending market. Borrowers could draw stablecoins without first handing their BTC to a wrapped-token custodian, but an open liquidation would still depend on WBTC from Aave’s shared Hub so an outside liquidator can receive a transferable asset immediately.

That split is the heart of the design. The collateral can stay native to Bitcoin while the fast settlement layer operates with wrapped Bitcoin on Aave.

Trending: Keystone Breach Exposed Hardware-Wallet Buyers to More Than Phishing

Babylon’s proposal creates a Bitcoin-collateral Spoke and a separate BTC Vault Swap Spoke. When a position is liquidated through the open route, the swap component borrows WBTC from the Hub, pays the liquidator at an oracle-based price minus a discount and holds the seized vault until an eligible buyer steps in.

The buyer later repays the WBTC draw and accrued interest, then waits through Bitcoin’s redemption process to claim the underlying BTC. That makes the Hub the bridge across a timing gap: the liquidator exits now, while the final buyer waits for the native asset.

A direct keeper route would work differently. An authorized operator could repay the borrower’s debt and redeem the vault directly, financing the settlement delay without drawing WBTC from the swap component.

The open route broadens participation, but it also creates a second debt tied to the seized vault. If the vault’s value no longer covers that WBTC obligation, the protocol can complete the sale while recognizing the unpaid balance as a deficit.

A separate CryptoSlate analysis traces who finances that wait and where a loss could land: Hub suppliers provide the WBTC until a permissioned buyer takes over, and that buyer then funds the redemption period. The analysis notes that Aave’s existing deficit framework can record a shortfall, but the Babylon proposal does not yet identify a dedicated funded WBTC backstop, leaving final draw limits and loss protection for later risk decisions.

Liquidity can stop the process before a deficit ever appears. If the Hub lacks enough WBTC or the swap component has reached its borrowing allowance, a permissionless liquidation can fail and the market has to rely on operators equipped for direct redemption.

This does not make native Bitcoin collateral a bad idea. It shows that “native collateral” describes where the BTC sits, not every asset and counterparty involved in keeping the lending market solvent.

The proposal still has governance votes, risk parameters and security work ahead. Borrowers will care about loan-to-value ratios and liquidation penalties, while WBTC suppliers need a clear answer on draw limits, loss allocation and funded protection.

Aave and Babylon may be able to unlock Bitcoin liquidity without wrapping the collateral itself. Before launch, they still have to prove that the settlement plumbing can absorb the moments when speed, liquidity and collateral value move in opposite directions.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

 

Search ProCoinNews