Skip to content
Blockchain LabTHE VENTURE STUDIO

LibraryInteroperability2024Design paperCorpus record

Spiderchain: an EVM chain pegged by a rotating set of Bitcoin multisigs

Botanix. Botanix Labs.

Botanix publishes an EVM chain whose bitcoin peg is held by a rotating set of multisignature wallets, the spiderchain, rather than by a validity proof in Bitcoin script.

A reading of the project's public design document. Not a copy, not a benchmark, and not an offer.

Botanix publishes an EVM chain whose bitcoin peg is held by a rotating set of multisignature wallets, the spiderchain, rather than by a validity proof in Bitcoin script.
Evidence
Primary paper
Re-measured
No
Assumptions
3
Records linked
9

01 Claim ledger

What the paper is allowed to say

Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.

  1. Claim 01 · Paper model

    The defect

    A rotating multisig is a federation with a rotation rule. It is not a zk-rollup because the chain also runs the EVM.

  2. Claim 02 · Paper model

    The proposal

    Botanix publishes an EVM chain whose bitcoin peg is held by a rotating set of multisignature wallets, the spiderchain, rather than by a validity proof in Bitcoin script.

  3. Claim 03 · Paper model

    The mechanism

    Pegged bitcoin sits in Bitcoin outputs controlled by the signer set the docs name. The rotation rule is what stops the set being a single static key.

  4. Claim 04 · Paper model

    The bound

    No signer count is copied here.

02 Three cuts

Observation, model, falsifier

A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.

  1. 01 The defect

    Observation

    What the study says

    A rotating multisig is a federation with a rotation rule. It is not a zk-rollup because the chain also runs the EVM.

    Model

    What has to hold

    You are reading Botanix's docs. Do not describe this peg as a validity proof.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    How does rotation retire an old set?

  2. 02 The proposal

    Observation

    What the study says

    Botanix publishes an EVM chain whose bitcoin peg is held by a rotating set of multisignature wallets, the spiderchain, rather than by a validity proof in Bitcoin script.

    Model

    What has to hold

    You are reading Botanix's docs. Do not describe this peg as a validity proof.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    What consensus finalises an EVM transaction on Botanix?

  3. 03 The mechanism

    Observation

    What the study says

    Pegged bitcoin sits in Bitcoin outputs controlled by the signer set the docs name. The rotation rule is what stops the set being a single static key.

    Model

    What has to hold

    No price, supply, yield, or adoption figure is added by this desk.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    How does rotation retire an old set?

  4. 04 The bound

    Observation

    What the study says

    No signer count is copied here.

    Model

    What has to hold

    You are reading Botanix's docs. Do not describe this peg as a validity proof.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    What threshold controls a peg output?

03 Sequence

One action, as an operating tape

  1. 01Pegged bitcoin sits in Bitcoin outputs controlled by the signer set the docs name. The rotation rule is what stops the set being a single static key.
  2. 02The EVM chain has its own consensus. Finality there is not Bitcoin finality.
  3. 03A compromise of the threshold can move the peg. That is the central risk, and it belongs in the first paragraph, not the last.

04 Load-bearing

The argument, and where a pitch drops it

  1. What the name has to mean

    The cut

    Botanix publishes an EVM chain whose bitcoin peg is held by a rotating set of multisignature wallets, the spiderchain, rather than by a validity proof in Bitcoin script.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.

  2. What actually moves

    The cut

    The EVM chain has its own consensus. Finality there is not Bitcoin finality.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.

  3. What a later deployment may change

    The cut

    A compromise of the threshold can move the peg. That is the central risk, and it belongs in the first paragraph, not the last.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    Rotation reduces how long one set holds the keys. It does not reduce the threshold assumption to zero.

05 Register

What has to be true

  • Cryptography · Not re-measured

    You are reading Botanix's docs. Do not describe this peg as a validity proof.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    The document is the one at the source URL. A marketing page with the same brand is not this text.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    No price, supply, yield, or adoption figure is added by this desk.

06 Divergence

What happened after the paper

Rotation reduces how long one set holds the keys. It does not reduce the threshold assumption to zero.

A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.

07 Pre-mortem

What to check before you use the idea

  4. 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.

08 Anatomy

The paper, in the order a builder needs

The problem it names

A rotating multisig is a federation with a rotation rule. It is not a zk-rollup because the chain also runs the EVM.

What the design proposes

  • Pegged bitcoin sits in Bitcoin outputs controlled by the signer set the docs name. The rotation rule is what stops the set being a single static key.
  • The EVM chain has its own consensus. Finality there is not Bitcoin finality.
  • A compromise of the threshold can move the peg. That is the central risk, and it belongs in the first paragraph, not the last.

How the mechanism is specified

  • Pegged bitcoin sits in Bitcoin outputs controlled by the signer set the docs name. The rotation rule is what stops the set being a single static key.
  • The EVM chain has its own consensus. Finality there is not Bitcoin finality.
  • A compromise of the threshold can move the peg. That is the central risk, and it belongs in the first paragraph, not the last.

What this page does not treat as proven

  • No signer count is copied here.
  • This is not Citrea and not BitVM. The peg is signatures.
  • Rotation reduces how long one set holds the keys. It does not reduce the threshold assumption to zero.

Why the desk still reads it

Botanix publishes an EVM chain whose bitcoin peg is held by a rotating set of multisignature wallets, the spiderchain, rather than by a validity proof in Bitcoin script.

09 Lexicon

Terms, opened into the record

Spiderchain
The documented construction of rotating Bitcoin multisigs that hold the peg.
Pegged bitcoin
A Bitcoin output controlled by that set. It is not RBTC and not a proof-verified lock.

10 Repository

Every linked record on this page

Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.

Protocols

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.