However, the problem of liquidity fragmentation will persist in the Polygon network, as the AggLayer will only work with chains built using the CDK. In the case of Cosmos, the problem of liquidity fragmentation is complex as tokens can come from various sources – EVM (injective), CosmWasm, or native IBC tokens. To unify liquidity, the naive way is to transfer all via IBC to Osmosis and swap all tokens to the desired one. However, there are more efficient ways to unify liquidity, as it will result in a significant loss of value due to high slippage and fees. Furthermore, many additional steps are needed to ensure that tokens are in one network. Despite all its exciting potential, achieving full crosschain interoperability comes with challenges.
- • Building cross-chain message from exchange chain to destination chain.
- To ensure the integrity of the cross-chain transaction, DestReactor records the order as fulfilled and relays a confirmation message through an Oracle bridge back to OriginReactor on the origin chain.
- Regarding double-spending attacks, Polkadot’s relay chain provides a unified security layer for all connected parachains.
- The following paragraphs go through some common problems with interoperability, cross-chain sharing protocols designed for multichain systems, and Polkadot’s infrastructure.
- Despite all its exciting potential, achieving full crosschain interoperability comes with challenges.
zkSync Holiday Takeover – Bridge for free
The response time is relatively standard for European servers, considering the median ranges from 558 to 1,061 ms, respectively. In Figure 9, we can see that the number of requests mentioned only slightly fills the server memory. We can also see a marginal difference in the cross-chain capabilities of users using applications that implement our solution compared to the standard PolkadotJS UI. Crosschain interoperability also simplifies and enhances user experiences across different chains. Retail users benefit from crosschain interoperability through seamless asset transfers, reduced transaction fees, and access to larger liquidity pools for DeFi and trading.
X Layer – bridge fee free for 2 weeks
Taking Polkadot as an example, we can observe that Parachains, as the storage of assets, provide a different way of accessing liquidity, and there is no unified way to access them. This protocol sends specifically formatted messages through open channels between Parachains. The message format used by XCMP is the cross-consensus message format (XCM) (Abbas et al., 2022). Bridges are currently the most popular way to transfer assets between chains, but they must be fixed (Lee et al., 2023). However, they can help us bring liquidity and partially fix the problem of fragmentation of liquidity (Wan and Adams, 2022; Capponi et al., 2024).
Earlier versions of SDK focused mainly on Moonbeam network (Moonbeam official website) use cases rather than general and overall ecosystem improvement. We have rewritten the code from Listing 2 into Moonbeam SDK as shown in Listing 3. We know that we plan to send a DOT token from the Polkadot Relay Chain into the Astar parachain, where the destination address is in the EVM format. The main component for liquidity unification is a General Message Passing (GMP) protocol that allows one to call a contract from one chain to another.
However, the problem of liquidity fragmentation persists in the Polkadot network, as most of the liquidity is concentrated in the Polkadot Relay Chain. Few users know they can use XCM to transfer assets between parachains, as Polkadot is known for its complexity. Achieving unified liquidity across diverse blockchain platforms is a critical challenge for fostering a thriving decentralized economy and most ledgers were not designed with interoperability in mind (Qasse et al., 2019). Interoperability mechanisms like atomic swaps, bridges, validator networks, and Intents enable assets and data to move securely between blockchains, facilitating verified crosschain interactions.
However, using Asset transfer API is still quite complex if we read the Listing 2. We must be aware of particular things, such as Parachain’s ID, the ID of the token, and XCM versions. Similarly to Polygon CDK, UniswapX is limited to homogeneous EVM networks such as Polygon, Base, and others.
However, from the IBC perspective, most liquidity is routed through Osmosis (Lucas García De Viedma Pérez, 2023). Osmosis is considered the primary DEX on the Cosmos Hub and the main gateway for cross-chain liquidity (Lagadamane Dinesha and Patil, 2023). Usually, liquidity from other ecosystems is routed through wormhole-wrapped tokens or channel-bound tokens, which fragment the token liquidity across the network, which is a problem. Suppose we bridge 1000 USDC from Injective to Osmosis and 1000 USDC from Cosmos Hub to Osmosis. In that case, our balance will not be 2000 USDC but two different tokens with a balance of 1,000 each.
Crosschain protocols must adopt a security-first approach, utilizing layered security models, decentralized validators, and monitoring mechanisms to protect assets during transfers. For example, Chainlink CCIP employs a Risk Management Network that monitors transactions for anomalies, adding an additional layer of protection. Crosschain solutions don’t just bridge the gaps between chains—they erase them.
However, the limitation of CDK and Aggregation layer seems obvious as AggLayer works only with homogeneous chains built using CDK. Therefore, liquidity is distributed only in multiple pools within multiple protocols across multiple homogeneous EVM networks. There are other ways to unify liquidity across the multichain ecosystem, like Cosmos (Kwon and Buchman). It stems from the nature of the Cosmos network, which is designed to be a network of independent chains that can communicate with each other via Inter-blockchain communication protocol (IBC). With more than 50 chains connected to the Cosmos Hub, the network is a prime example of a multichain ecosystem that can benefit from unified liquidity.
Consider a hypothetical pin up casino scenario where the trading market for a specific parachain is grappling with liquidity issues due to a myriad of problems. Different blockchains have varying transaction throughput and block confirmation times. For example, Bitcoin’s block time is around 10 min, while Solana processes transactions much faster.
Therefore, we believe that grasping this problem as soon as possible is the key to creating a vibrant ecosystem. Furthermore, we must continue to investigate and improve the throughput and efficiency of LiquiSpell, as demand will increase with time. As our analysis from the previous section outlines, the solution delivers stable results, even though we forced it to process 10,000 requests quickly and did not return any failed requests.
Depositing and unwrapping AVAX token using GMP (Send a wrapped native token).
- Multichain compatibility ensures that dApps can interact with multiple blockchain networks, leveraging each chain’s unique advantages to build more powerful and flexible solutions.
- The following section will discuss the potential solutions of the Polkadot and compare them with state-of-the-art solutions from other networks (Wood, 2023; Zhang et al., 2023; Siniscalchi et al., 2023).
- With crosschain interoperability, we can build a seamless blockchain playground where users, apps, assets, and smart contracts move freely across networks without friction.
- Advanced messaging models provide secure communication for seamless multichain interactions.
1 Solution architecture overview
IBC’s operation is similar to sending internet packets, ensuring safety through the presence of at least two Relayer entities. The packet flow adheres to a specific process, accounting for successful deliveries and scenarios where messages fail due to timeouts or unreachable destinations (Kim et al., 2022). We can see that most liquidity is concentrated in the Polkadot Relay Chain, with a significant portion distributed across the parachains. Due to the diverse nature of parachains, liquidity can be created and originate from various sources. For example, we can illustrate the journey of stablecoin USDT into Polkadot Network. We can use multiple bridges and centralized exchanges to transfer USDT to the Polkadot network.
