Babylon vs Hipo: Bitcoin or TON staking? (2026)

Babylon and Hipo serve different assets on different networks, so the first choice is straightforward: Babylon is for native Bitcoin, while Hipo is for GRAM on TON. Babylon offers staking to help secure proof-of-stake chains, plus Trustless Bitcoin Vaults designed to use BTC as collateral. Its first vault borrowing use case, borrowing supported assets on Aave V4 on Ethereum, was on public testnet, so treat that feature as unproven in production.

Hipo is a liquid staking protocol. Users stake GRAM and receive hGRAM, whose value against GRAM is described as accruing validator rewards. Hipo says hGRAM can also be used across TON DeFi. That adds flexibility, but using a liquid staking token in other applications brings additional smart-contract and market risk. These are not interchangeable ways to stake: choose according to the asset you hold and the network you want to use.

Hipo has the simpler stated staking-fee offer: its site says the fee is now 0%, meaning stakers receive all staking rewards. The wording matters because the fee is described as current and could change. Rewards themselves vary, and recent reward figures are not a promise of future returns. TON network fees, costs to swap hGRAM or HPO, and any unstaking costs are not stated publicly.

Babylon does not publish its fees. That leaves the protocol cost of staking or creating a vault unclear, while Bitcoin network transaction fees apply when users lock or unlock BTC. If borrowing through the Aave V4 use case, borrowing costs are set by that lending market, not Babylon. Check the relevant app and documentation before committing funds. A stated 0% protocol fee does not mean every transaction or activity is cost-free, and missing fee information should be treated as a point to verify, not as zero.

Both protocols carry smart-contract risk, but their disclosed security information differs. Hipo lists four audit reports across its v1 and v2 contracts, including a v2 report from Quantstamp dated April 2025. Its code is described as open source. Audits can identify issues but cannot guarantee that contracts are free of bugs; users also face TON network, validator, and token-market risks. hGRAM or HPO could trade at a discount in secondary markets.

Babylon is designed so BTC remains on Bitcoin rather than being wrapped or bridged, but that does not remove protocol risk. Its staking scripts, slashing rules, and challenge-period withdrawals depend on correct implementation. No audits are listed for Babylon in the referenced TVL data, though the project links to a bug bounty and GitHub. The first vault borrowing use case was on public testnet. For either protocol, self-custody means wallet mistakes can be difficult or impossible to reverse.

Hipo has the more direct liquid-staking flow: stake at least 1 GRAM according to the site, receive hGRAM, and use that token elsewhere in TON DeFi if you choose. The protocol also offers multilingual support and publishes documentation, statistics, and community channels. Its ease-of-use score is 8/10, compared with 6.5/10 for Babylon. These scores are a guide, not a guarantee that either interface will suit every user.

Babylon's main distinction is that users can stake native BTC without wrapping or bridging it, and retain control through the staking setup. Its vault product aims to give BTC a collateral role, but the first borrowing integration was still on public testnet. Babylon therefore has a broader BTC use case on paper, while Hipo's liquid staking product is the more established, direct option described here. Neither project publishes enough fee information to assume the full cost in advance.

Choose Babylon if your goal is to put native BTC to work while avoiding wrapped BTC and bridge exposure. Its much higher TVL indicates substantially greater current scale, but it does not establish that staking is risk-free or that vault borrowing is production-ready. Babylon does not state reward rates, and its vault borrowing use case was on public testnet, so focus on the live staking product and confirm current availability before proceeding.

Choose Hipo if you hold GRAM on TON and want a liquid staking token, a low stated minimum, and a currently advertised 0% staking fee. It has four listed audit reports, but its TVL is much smaller, rewards can change, and hGRAM introduces additional risks when used in DeFi. HPO is not required simply to understand the staking choice; its small market value and potential liquidity concerns make it a separate token risk. For either option, only stake assets you can afford to put at risk.