Compared to multi-chain, can multi-layer cross-chain bridges gain greater opportunities?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Compared to multi-chain, can multi-layer cross-chain bridges gain greater opportunities?
When choosing a cross-chain bridge, we always face two trade-offs: they are either more secure, or faster and more cost-effective.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsWritten by: Adam Cochran
Translated by: TechFlow intern
For cross-chain bridges, I believe there are two correct solutions:
1) More complex and decentralized—possibly closer to the native protocol level.
2) Slower and more expensive.
Let’s start with 2): Why are traditional payment methods slow and costly? Because this reduces risk—long delays and random checks reduce fraudulent messages, while higher fees increase the cost of malicious behavior.
But unlike traditional payment processing, where fraud accounts for only a fraction of total transaction volume, in cryptocurrency, a single mistake often leads to the loss of all funds. In such cases, our only option is more security checks, time delays for large transactions, daily transaction limits, etc.—a rather painful but practical approach.
As for 1), nearly every model you can think of comes down to one key issue:
You need a way to either read from different chains (trust issues) or write to different chains.
However, this means we can improve one particular scenario: L2s.
A true L2 regularly writes back to Ethereum, meaning they can batch a series of bridge-related transactions. So let’s imagine a ZKP system within this model:
-
- There is a burnForVoucher() command in the bridge contract;
-
- Users burn their tokens, generating two proofs: one proving the token was indeed burned, and another proving the token hasn’t been minted yet;
-
- On Arbitrum or Optimism, users call the redeemForTokens() command;
-
- The contract verifies the proof that the token hasn’t been minted and checks whether the timestamp falls outside the period since the last mainchain write (to prevent double-spending);
-
- Tokens are sent to the user;
-
- Users are charged a small rollup fee;
-
- The L2 relays this transaction individually back to the mainnet and collects from the user the bridging fee incurred during the previous write interval;
Multiple methods can add extra security layers, such as holding tokens until the next L2 write occurs. This model also requires specific support from L2s to implement, but it increases the potential for truly secure bridging.
While this only applies to L2s, not other chains, the reality is that when choosing cross-chain bridges, we always face two trade-offs: either greater security or faster and cheaper operations.
But if our multichain future isn't actually multichain, but rather multi-layered and multi-sharded—focused on (true) L2s—then we can build better bridges for communication back and forth, because L2s already do this. This is likely a huge opportunity for teams focused on the L2 vertical.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@adamscochran
