In this summer of NFT, we ushered in the summer of Layer1 and Layer2. Taimukaiqi era of multi-chain, Ethernet Square to the Great Migration Layer1 & 2 are in full swing. This article will take a look at the cross-chain bridges of many popular projects.
For token transfers between Ethereum and a Layer 2 network, we usually create a bridge between L1 and L2. This bridge consists of a bridge contract on L1 and a bridge contract on L2. When the asset is transferred from L1 to L2, the asset is deposited into a bridge contract on L1, and then an asset of the same amount is minted on L2 and deposited into the designated address; and when the asset is transferred from L2 back to L1, Assets will be destroyed on L2, and then the same amount of assets will become available in the bridge contract of L1.
Arbitrum and Optimism are such principles. Therefore, when we count the TVL of the cross-chain bridge (that is, the TVL in the L1 bridge contract), it is actually the TVL on the L2, especially for projects like Arbitrum that have a relatively rudimentary overall infrastructure not long after it went online. Everyone is basically the same. Cross from Ethereum to Arbitrum network through the official cross-chain bridge ArbitrumBridges. For more precise data, we can view the ArbitrumL1ERC20 gateway address 0xa3A7B6F88361F48403514059F1F16C8E78d60EeC. According to data from DeFiLlama, the current lock-up volume of Arbitrum has reached US$2.2 billion, which basically means that the value of US$2.2 billion is locked on ArbitrumBridges, which has skyrocketed by 32 times in the past 7 days. In contrast, Optimism, which is also the OptimisticRollup technical solution, is much inferior. OptimismERC20BridgeTVL is about 21.177 million US dollars.
Thanks to the crazy influx of the past few days, ArbitrumBridges has been extremely exaggerated on the curve. It should be noted that the inflow of 1.5 billion U.S. dollars in the two weeks, 1.35 billion inflows to ArbiNYAN, a high APY, no audit, seems to be a proper “earth dog” project. This can’t help but raise questions about the sustainability of Arbitrum’s high TVL.
In fact, various cross-chain protocols are also actively being accessed. The cross-chain payment protocol cBridge on the Celer network can already cross-chain the Ethereum mainnet to Arbitrum and Optimism. The cross-chain protocol HopProtocol has also supported Optimism and will soon support Arbitrum.
So, compared to the native bridges of Arbitrum and Optimism, what are the advantages and disadvantages of cBridge and HopProtocol? From the perspective of ETH entering layer2, Optimism’s native bridge has supported multiple ERC20 tokens (including RAI, SNX, UNI, etc.), and Arbitrum has fully supported various ERC20 tokens; in contrast, cBridge and HopProtocol are relatively limited. The former supports stablecoins such as USDT, USDC , BUSD and DAI and ETH, while the latter only supports USDT, USDC and Matic. From the perspective of Layer2 returning to the Ethereum mainnet, due to the adoption of the OptimisticRollup security model, on Arbitrum and Optimism, when redeeming assets from L2 to L1, users must wait for a challenge period (about 7 days) after sending the transaction. After the end, it can finally be executed on L1. With HopProtocol, you don’t need to wait so long, and you can get your assets in almost seconds.
It is worth mentioning that Celer and Hop are obviously more versatile in terms of cross-chain functions than the native bridges of Arbitrum and Optimism. Hop supports cross-chain between ETH and each Layer2, layer2 and layer2, while Celer also supports cross-chain between various types of Layer1. With the continuous development of multi-chain DeFi and the continuous increase in cross-chain demand, Celer and Hop may occupy more shares in the future.
In fact, according to the classification of mechanisms for verifying cross-chain transactions, Celer and Hop are both liquidity networks (LiquidityNetwork), similar to a peer-to-peer network, in which each node acts as a “router” that holds assets in the source chain and the target chain. in stock”. The liquidity network has a good performance in cross-chain speed and security. Although there are limitations in transferring state data, a liquidity network may be the best solution for pure cross-chain transfer of tokens (compared to external validators such as Anysway and light clients such as Near Rainbow Bridge) &relay).
Compared to pure layer2 such as Arbitrum and Optimism, Polygon is actually a “pseudo layer2”. PolygonBridge uses the dual consensus architecture of Plasma+PoS to optimize speed and decentralization. Under normal circumstances, we use PoSBridge every day, and the security is guaranteed by an external validator. It is faster and more convenient when layer2 cross-chain back to the Ethereum mainnet (withdrawal), usually only 20 minutes to 3 hours. In contrast, Plasma’s withdrawal mechanism requires a 7-day challenge period, that is, 7 days to wait for withdrawal, which is more secure in terms of safety. It should be noted that this architecture allows the entire system to support the transfer of arbitrary states. In other words, we can call a contract on Ethereum and issue an event, and the Polygon validator will relay this data to the contract on the Polygon chain to realize the cross-chain transfer of state.
How many TVLs are currently on PolygonBridge? Find PolygonBridge’s ERC20 address 0x40ec5b33f54e0e8a33a975908c5ba1c14e5bbbdf, add up all kinds of ERC20 tokens on the address, and TVL is about 2.4 billion US dollars. According to data from DeFiLlama, TVL on Polygon is about US$4.68 billion. Then, cross-chain assets from Ethereum currently account for about half, and the remaining half includes various native projects and assets on Polygon, as well as from other chains such as BSC. asset.
Checking the data changes of the PolygonBridge contract address, we found that the number of transactions (deposits) transferred to the contract reached its peak in June, and has been declining all the way, and has now returned to the level of March this year. The transfer from the contract also showed a similar trend, but the absolute amount was still lower than the inflow. In other words, the frequency of operations on PolygonBridge is currently decreasing, and the migration from Ethereum to Polygon has ended. Ethereum assets are still flowing in, but the overall speed is slowing down, and TVL is gradually stabilizing.
The number of transactions transferred (deposit) to the contract, from Bitquery
If you want to ask what is the most beautiful layer1 in August and September? Solana, Fantom and Avalanche are definitely on the list. The three major public chains have all given high bonuses to promote ecological development, and the performance of tokens on the secondary market is surprising.
According to the classification of mechanisms for verifying cross-chain transactions, SolanaWormhole, FantomAnyswapBridge, and AvalancheBridge are all external validators. There is usually a set of validators that monitor the sending address on the source chain and perform operations on the target chain based on consensus. Asset transfer is usually done by locking the assets on the source chain and casting the same amount of assets on the target chain. It can be said that most of the cross-chain bridges we see in the market (including the previous Polygon PoS bridge) are this mechanism. It should be noted that under this mechanism, the security of users’ cross-chain transactions comes from the external validator, not the source chain or the target chain. Compared with the security of blockchains such as Ethereum and Solana, the external validator itself is obviously relatively more vulnerable.
According to DuneAnalytics data, as of 0:00 on September 12, the TVL on SolanaWormhole was about 500 million U.S. dollars, and the AvalancheBridge reached 1.446 billion U.S. dollars. We can also check the contract addresses of SolanaWormhole and AvalancheBridge on Etherscan. This data comparison is still somewhat unexpected. I did not expect that Solana’s data is only about 1/3 of Avalanche’s. The specific cross-chain currency may tell us the answer.
The largest ERC20 currencies on SolanaWormhole are: WrappedUST (169 million U.S. dollars), FTT (93.65 million U.S. dollars), Serum (46.147 million U.S. dollars), HUSD (approximately 40 million U.S. dollars), DAI (23.85 million U.S. dollars), HBTC ( 23.219 million US dollars). On AvalancheBridge, it is mainly WETH (534 million U.S. dollars), WBTC (246 million U.S. dollars), USDT (193 million U.S. dollars), USDC (176 million U.S. dollars), DAI (155 million U.S. dollars), and LINK (143 million U.S. dollars).
AvalancheBridge is more in line with our understanding of traditional cross-chain, and is truly an asset from Ethereum. In contrast, SolanaWormhole is more like opening a cross-chain cycle in the SBF ecosystem.
Why didn’t FantomAnyswapBridge put it in and talk about it together? There is a very magical thing here. SolanaWormhole, AvalancheBridge, etc. are actually officially created cross-chain bridges, as ecological infrastructure, specifically aimed at Ethereum; Fantom does not seem to have launched a cross-chain bridge specifically. Anyswap mentioned above, Multichain.xyz and Spookyswap not mentioned above are all cross-chain bridges commonly used by Fantom. Interestingly, they not only support Ethereum, all support BSC, and some even support various chains such as OKEx. From the data of AnyswapBridge alone, TVL has also reached 500 million US dollars, which is also quite impressive.
According to the classification of mechanisms for verifying cross-chain transactions, NearRainbowBridge is a light client & relay. It is supported by the NEAR light client on the Ethereum blockchain and the Ethereum light client on the NEAR blockchain. The NEAR light client on the Ethereum blockchain can effectively track and verify the ether in the NEAR smart contract. The state of the NEAR blockchain, while the Ethereum light client on NEAR can effectively track and verify the state of the NEAR protocol in the Ethereum smart contract. In order to transfer assets between blockchains, users can store their assets in a smart contract called a locker, and then the corresponding light client on another blockchain verifies its status. Once verified, users can cast the same amount of packaging assets on another chain, thereby ensuring that the original asset value and the packaging asset value are anchored at a 1:1 ratio.
Checking the contract address of RainbowBridge, we can see that TVL is currently US$13.97 million, and the main assets are USDT (US$4.9487 million), WETH (US$4.7212 million), DAI (US$3.928 million), etc. Overall, the volume is still much smaller than other layer1&layer2, even HarmonyBridges has 67.66 million US dollars.
List of assets on the bridge
There is no doubt that Arbitrum is definitely the king of traffic in recent days, and Polygon is still the king of TVL. So, in these cross-chain bridges, which assets are circulating?
In total, WETH (ETH) contributed about 2.637 billion U.S. dollars of TVL, accounting for 37.1% of all assets. It is the asset most used by investors. After all, going out from Ethereum also meets our expectations. The second and third places are USDC and WBTC, accounting for 17% and 13.8% respectively. In the top ten list, we found that FTT has also appeared, which is an exchange platform currency that ranks in the top ten, and the Solana ecology is indispensable.
Asset distribution on the bridge, from DuneAnalyticsby@eliasimos
Attach the above cross-chain bridge link:
Posted by:CoinYuppie，Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/migrating-from-ethereum-to-popular-l1-and-l2-cross-chain-bridges-you-must-know/
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.