Analysis of the Technical Architecture of Lombard Protocol As BTCfi gradually moves out of the conceptual stage, Lombard, which has not yet undergone TGE but has already attracted over $1.6 billion in TVL, is building a complete and scalable Bitcoin capital market protocol. One of its core pillars is this rather complex yet efficient technical architecture system! It’s a bit complicated, but I’ve tried to simplify it: 1｜LBTC Minting Process The mapping from BTC to on-chain BTC revolves around a dual-layer mechanism of Security Consortium and Trustless Relayer: 🔻 Users initiate a staking request on the front end, and the Security Consortium allocates a dedicated BTC address (the destination chain, receiving address, and cooperation code are all encoded within) 🔻 After the user completes the BTC transfer, the Relayer listens for on-chain actions and notifies the Consortium for multi-signature verification 🔻 Once verification is complete, the Relayer obtains the signature and mints LBTC on the destination chain. This part requires no user interaction and is completed automatically 🔻 If the Relayer encounters an issue, the user can manually complete the minting process using the signature to ensure censorship resistance ▰▰▰▰▰ 2｜LBTC Redemption Process This process exchanges LBTC back for on-chain BTC. The user calls the redemption method of the LBTC contract, destroys a specified amount of LBTC, and fills in their BTC address. Multi-layer security strategies prevent single points of failure and malicious operations: 🔻 The Relayer listens for the destruction action and notifies the Consortium for review 🔻 After passing the review, the redemption request enters the BTC transaction queue. At this point, the system will wait for Babylon to release the corresponding BTC (usually within 7-9 days) Ultimately, CubeSigner constructs the actual BTC transfer transaction, which must meet: Multi-signature, time lock expiration, and daily/weekly withdrawal limits ▰▰▰▰▰ 3｜Cross-Chain Bridging Lombard's bridging mechanism combines Chainlink CCIP and secondary verification from the Consortium, balancing the universality of CCIP with the security of the Consortium, providing highly reliable multi-chain transfer capabilities: 🔻 Users initiate bridging on the source chain and prepay all Gas costs 🔻 The Relayer captures the transaction and reports it to the Consortium for review 🔻 After approval, Chainlink obtains the authorized signature from the Consortium and executes the bridging on the target chain ▰▰▰▰▰ 4｜BTC Delegation Strategy Changes in the total amount of LBTC will affect the staking status of BTC on Babylon: 🔻 If the minting volume of LBTC increases, the protocol will add new BTC to Babylon daily 🔻 If LBTC decreases (user redemption), the system will dynamically withdraw BTC for redemption, ensuring liquidity meets the 7-9 day withdrawal window This mechanism ensures that LBTC is always backed by actual BTC, while the system's liquidity is well-matched and not prone to bank run risks. ▰▰▰▰▰ Summary Lombard is not just issuing a wBTC alternative; it has systematically designed asset mapping, cross-chain infrastructure, settlement processes, security strategies, and on-chain fund management. This comprehensive capability, similar to Circle + EigenLayer + LayerZero, is a key factor that distinguishes it from BTCfi protocols like Babylon and Stacks. If we believe BTCfi is the next $10 billion TVL-level track, then projects like Lombard, with clear technical architecture, orderly capital flow, and flexible mechanism design, will be core supporting forces. Several indicators worth continuous attention include: ※ TGE timing and token distribution mechanism ※ Number of chains and activity level of cross-chain bridge deployment ※ Stability of liquidity ratio with Babylon ※ Whether the circulation growth of on-chain LBTC keeps pace with demand The future of BTCfi may not rely on issuing another BTC, but rather on builders like Lombard to leverage Bitcoin ecosystem liquidity.