Will institutions follow Bitcoin onto other chains?

The success of spot Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and major BTC treasury companies marked another step in the institutional adoption of crypto.

US-traded spot Bitcoin ETFs captured $518 million on Sept. 29 and have accumulated $57.3 billion in net flows since their launch in January 2024, according to Farside Investors data.

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) crossed $80 billion in assets by July 2025, becoming the fastest ETF to reach that threshold in just 374 trading days. Adding to the stellar performance, names such as Harvard Management Co. and the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund Mubadala disclosed investments in Bitcoin through IBIT.

The digital asset treasury movement expanded in tandem with the adoption of ETFs. Strategy increased its Bitcoin holdings to 649,031 BTC worth $72.67 billion as of Sept. 29. Meanwhile, Metaplanet up-sized its share offering to $1.4 billion in September to fund aggressive Bitcoin acquisitions, targeting 210,000 BTC by 2027.

Institutions now face a choice between cold storage and yield generation. Max Gokhman, deputy CIO at Franklin Templeton Investment Solutions, noted that yield is a major driver for institutional adoption of crypto.

And the SEC is clearing pathways for yield through regulated products. On Aug. 6, a staff statement confirmed that liquid staking tokens do not constitute securities by default, while the Sept. 17 generic listing standards expedited crypto ETF approvals.

As more altcoin ETFs are set to launch in the US, potentially offering yields through staking, institutions will gain exposure to the returns that crypto has to offer. This change might impact how Wall Street sees Bitcoin.

Bitcoin options fragment across chains

Bitcoin is scattered across 365,958.79 BTC in synthetic forms totaling $41.8 billion as of Sept. 30, according to Bitcoin Layers.

As Bitcoin does not have native smart contract capabilities, the idea of a synthetic token, commonly referred to as a wrapper, is to allow the usage of BTC in DeFi protocols built on other blockchains.

Babylon leads native staking with 58,271.77 BTC, generating a 0.29% APR through a self-custodial protocol that secures proof-of-stake chains.

Using Babylon’s infrastructure, chains and applications can tap a security layer maintained by BTC staking.

Lombard’s LBTC token transforms Bitcoin into a liquid staking asset with 0.82% APY and $1.3 billion in total value locked (TVL), compatible with Ethereum, Base, Solana, BNB Smart Chain, Katana, Sonic, Starknet, and Sui through native Chainlink and canonical bridge integrations.

Threshold operates tBTC v2 across Ethereum, Starknet, Sui, and MezoChain with 6,335.31 tBTC bridged and $717.7 million in TVL.

Protocol	TVL	Yield/APR	Compatible Networks
Babylon	$6.61 billion	0.29% APR	Bitcoin native (secures PoS chains via Bitcoin staking)
Lombard (LBTC)	$1.3 billion	0.82% APY	13 networks: Ethereum, Base, Solana, BNB Smart Chain, Katana, Sonic, Starknet, Sui, and others
Threshold (tBTC v2)	$717.7 million	N/A	4 networks: Ethereum, Starknet, Sui, MezoChain
Solv Protocol (solvBTC)	$1.7 billion	0.79%-13.28% APY	12 networks: Arbitrum, Mantle, Bitcoin mainnet, and others
b14g	$300 million	~5% APR (average)	Multiple networks (dual-staking with native tokens)
Zeus Network (zBTC)	$58.7 million	4.52% APY	Bitcoin-to-Solana bridge (via Multi-Party Computation)
Thorchain	$74 million	N/A	Cross-chain native swaps (multiple blockchains)
Lightning Network	$438 million	N/A	Bitcoin Layer-2 payment channels

Solv Protocol offers its solvBTC across 12 chains, including Arbitrum, Mantle, and the Bitcoin mainnet, with $1.7 billion in total value locked (TVL).

Meanwhile, b14g offers an average of 5% APR through dual-staking mechanisms that combine BTC with native protocol tokens, across a $300 million TVL.

Zeus Network bridges Bitcoin to Solana via the zBTC wrapper, with $58.7 million in TVL using Multi-Party Computation for trustless cross-chain interoperability. It offers 4.52% APY on staking via Fragmetric.

Thorchain facilitates native Bitcoin swaps for assets across different chains with $74 million locked. Bitcoin bridges processed $1.87 million in September 2025.

Regarding chains with the largest amounts of wrappers, Ethereum holds 178,458.67 BTC as of Sept. 30, followed by BNB Smart Chain at 24,082.67 BTC and Base at 21,647.85 BTC.

Besides the wrapper domination in established blockchains, Lightning Network presents itself as a significant rail for BTC usage.

Lightning maintains $438 million in TVL despite a 20% decline in public capacity from 5,400 BTC in late 2023 to 4,200 BTC by August 2025.

Coinbase reported that 15% of Bitcoin withdrawals were routed through Lightning by mid-2025, and CoinGate documented that Lightning accounted for 16% of Bitcoin orders in 2024, compared to 6.5% two years prior.

Additionally, Tether deployed USDT over Lightning via Taproot Assets in January 2025, enabling dollar-denominated payments without locking BTC in channels.

Practical difficulties

Despite the plurality of networks and wrappers that institutions could use to add composability to Bitcoin if they wish to, the key point of access remains through ETFs.

Using BlackRock’s IBIT S-1 filing as an example, the document specifies that Coinbase Custody Trust Company holds Bitcoin in segregated cold storage wallets with multi-signature authentication, separate from all other Coinbase assets.

In January 2025, BlackRock filed an amendment to IBIT’s structure to allow in-kind creation and redemption, requiring Coinbase Custody to process withdrawals to public blockchain addresses within 12 hours.

Currently, there is limited room to incorporate yield pathways into Bitcoin ETFs, which would involve exploring the DeFi ecosystem using BTC.

Protocol	Structure Type	Custody Model	Trust Assumptions
Babylon	Bitcoin-native staking protocol	Self-custodial (non-custodial time-locks on Bitcoin)	Trust-minimized: Uses Bitcoin’s native time-lock scripting. BTC remains on Bitcoin blockchain in user’s control. Relies on Bitcoin’s security model. No bridging, wrapping, or third-party custody. Slashing possible for validator misbehavior.
Lombard (LBTC)	Liquid staking token (LST) built on Babylon	Consortium model with decentralized custody	Federated trust: Built on Babylon’s security layer. Uses Security Consortium of institutional custodians. Multi-party validation required for minting/burning LBTC. Relies on finality providers and signers. Proof-of-reserves via Chainlink/Redstone oracles. 9-day unbonding period (Babylon 7-day + Lombard 2-day rebalancing).
Threshold (tBTC v2)	Decentralized bridge protocol	Distributed multi-signature custody (100-of-100 threshold)	Honest-majority assumption: Randomly selected group of 100+ node operators hold keys via threshold cryptography. Requires 51-of-100 signers to approve operations. Relies on probabilistic security and staked T tokens for economic security. Forward security protects existing deposits. SPV proofs verify Bitcoin state. No single custodian controls funds.
Solv Protocol	Multi-chain Bitcoin LST platform	Varies by integration	Multi-chain trust: Relies on security of each integrated chain (12 chains). Cross-chain bridge dependencies. Structured product framework with yield aggregation. Trust assumptions vary by destination chain and vault strategy.
b14g	Bitcoin restaking protocol	Dual-staking (BTC + native token)	Merge restaking model: Combines staked BTC with protocol native tokens. No BTC slashing risk (only native token subject to slashing). Relies on security of underlying networks being secured. Trust distributed across validator sets.
Zeus Network	Cross-chain bridge (Bitcoin to Solana)	Multi-Party Computation (MPC) custody	Federated MPC trust: Uses threshold signature scheme requiring multiple parties to cooperate. Decentralized node network manages zBTC minting/burning. Trust distributed across validator set. Depends on Solana network security for destination assets.
Thorchain	Decentralized liquidity protocol	Threshold Signature Scheme (TSS) with bonded validators	Economic security model: Validators post bonds (2-3x value of pooled assets). Continuous Liquidity Pools (CLPs) enable native swaps. Slashing mechanism for malicious behavior. Trust distributed across economically incentivized validator set. No wrapped tokens—native asset swaps.
Lightning Network	Bitcoin Layer-2 payment channels	Self-custodial (channel-based)	Channel counterparty trust: Users maintain custody via pre-funded payment channels. Bilateral trust between channel partners. Can route through multiple channels. Time-locked smart contracts enforce settlement. Trust-minimized for direct channels; routing adds complexity. No bridging or wrapping.

Additionally, the Financial Action Task Force’s Travel Rule mandates financial institutions and Virtual Asset Service Providers to transmit originator and beneficiary identifying information with virtual currency transactions.

This standard requires end-to-end transparency to aid law enforcement and mitigate financial crime risks. ETF issuers must maintain segregated custody with regulated entities that are capable of producing audit trails that satisfy the travel rule requirements.

Wrapped Bitcoin protocols introduce trust assumptions that conflict with institutional custody standards.

Threshold’s tBTC relies on decentralized node operators to maintain the bridge between Bitcoin and Ethereum, creating a multi-signature custodial model where no single entity controls funds.

Although this is positive from a decentralization perspective, it introduces a security dependency on the integrity of the validator set. Lombard utilizes Babylon’s Bitcoin Staking Protocol, combined with a consortium model for custody, which distributes risk across multiple parties.

Again, there is an effort to decentralize single points of failure; however, this adds coordination requirements that complicate audit procedures.

A Bitcoin ETF holding LBTC on Base would face scrutiny on Optimism’s fraud-proof system, Base’s sequencer centralization, and the bridge’s oracle dependencies.

Each wrapped BTC variant trades off security assumptions. BitGo’s wBTC utilizes centralized custody with legal agreements, whereas Threshold’s tBTC distributes custody across validators, who must maintain uptime and adhere to honest behavior.

These layered risks multiply audit surfaces beyond what segregated cold storage presents.

Yield profiles and cost-benefit

Babylon’s 0.29% APR on staked Bitcoin compares unfavourably to Ethereum’s 3.2% staking yield or Solana’s 7.1% APY available through liquid staking derivatives.

Lombard’s 0.82% return requires institutions to accept exposure to 13 different blockchain networks, each with distinct security models and potential failure modes.

These examples reveal the challenge that a 1% yield advantage on a 5% Bitcoin allocation contributes just five basis points to total portfolio returns.

Institutions might find insufficient compensation for introducing bridge risk, oracle dependencies, and cross-chain settlement complexity.

Franklin Templeton’s Gokhman observed that institutions increasingly view Bitcoin as a cyclical, high-beta risk asset that correlates with traditional financial markets as institutional adoption grows.

This framing suggests that portfolio managers prefer to separate their Bitcoin holdings from yield generation, maintaining BTC as a pure exposure play while sourcing returns from assets with more established DeFi infrastructure.

An institution could hold Bitcoin through IBIT’s segregated cold storage while deploying capital into Ethereum ETFs that will potentially offer staking yields through proven liquid staking tokens approved by the SEC’s August 2025 guidance.

Dividing exposure requires allocating capital across multiple positions but preserves custody clarity and simplifies compliance reporting.

The alternative of bridging Bitcoin to access DeFi yields forces institutions to evaluate whether Threshold’s node operators or Lombard’s decentralized consortium provides equivalent security to Coinbase Custody’s federally regulated cold storage.

Each bridge introduces a new counterparty, and each destination chain adds another risk surface that chain risk committees must review. The fragmented liquidity across 365,958 BTC, spread across different protocols and chains, compounds this complexity, as no single venue offers the depth that institutions require for entry and exit without market impact.

In conclusion, Bitcoin layer-2 and alternative layer protocols offer technical solutions for yield generation. However, it is up to regulators to find a way to accommodate these paths into regulated products, and it is up to institutions to decide whether direct exposure is worth the risk.

The post Will institutions follow Bitcoin onto other chains? appeared first on CryptoSlate.