Cross-chain is dead? There are only two directions left in the multi-chain future

This article sorts out the opinions of encryption researcher pseudotheos on personal social media platforms, and rhythm BlockBeats organizes and translates them as follows:

Cross-chain is already a dead end from a technical point of view, and there are only two paths for the future development of the encrypted world: providing security through Ethereum Rollups, or independent development of multiple chains.

It turns out that storing huge amounts of wealth in a single cross-chain bridge contract is not a good solution, not only is it full of single points of failure, but it also introduces a huge contagion risk vector to the target chain.

Poly Network was stolen $611 million, Wormhole was stolen $326 million, and Ronin was stolen $624 million. In just a few months, there have been countless such cases, and the similarities of these thefts are all because of cross-chain There is a problem with the bridge.

If you don’t already understand the mechanics of cross-chain bridges, here’s how they work:

Users lock their assets in the contract on the source chain, and the cross-chain contract casts an equivalent asset certificate on the target chain after confirming the asset to represent the asset.

On the target chain, the user is actually trading with this IOU certificate, while the real asset is still stored in the smart contract of the source chain, which is the source of the infection risk.

If there is a vulnerability exploit event in the source contract, the IOU assets on the target chain will lose their endorsement and have no value. At this time, all protocols that use the IOU asset on the target chain will be affected, such as asset pricing errors, liquidation, etc.

Because of this, the idea of ​​”cross-chain” is likely to be a dead end. In my opinion, anyone who claims it has hope of resurrection is doing so because they have an interest in it.

Under this premise, there are only two development directions left in the encryption industry:

1. The Rollup-Centric Future

In a Rollup-centric environment, a protocol only needs to deploy assets on the underlying L1 once to achieve “natural” interoperability with other Rollups on the L1 chain.

Even off-chain Rollups allow assets to exit to L1, rather than being trapped on the target chain like cross-chain. Native Rollups also eliminates the risk of bridging from L1 to L2.

In addition, Rollups’ unique DA flexibility also enables it to store data on-chain or off-chain as needed, which can not only adapt to niche application chains, but also meet the huge demand for scalability at the execution layer. On top of that, Rollups drastically reduce security budgets.

Second, the multi-chain future

In a multi-chain future without interoperability, protocols would need to deploy local assets on each chain separately, which would make each chain have different security assumptions.

In addition, a centralized trading platform is needed between chains to help them transfer assets, or they need to cooperate with each other to create a new transaction mechanism.

In the history of technology development, technology with convenience, composability and low cost has always won.

Even if the future of multi-chain development is still dominated by EVM (high speed, low cost), public chains with independent consensus mechanisms are unlikely to seize too much market share from the Rollup-centric Ethereum.

I expect that other public chains will develop their own unique advantages, but over time, most chains (especially the EVM chain) will eventually migrate to become an Ethereum Rollup.

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2022-04-01 23:46
Next 2022-04-01 23:48

Related articles