Interview with Wormhole Foundation COO: Uniswap's Cross-chain Choice, Founderless Organizations, and the 900 Million Messages Milestone
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Interview with Wormhole Foundation COO: Uniswap's Cross-chain Choice, Founderless Organizations, and the 900 Million Messages Milestone
Bringing everyone together into the same project management tool and consistently using it is crucial for keeping projects on track.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsInterview: Sunny, TechFlow
Guest: Dan Reecer, COO of Wormhole Foundation
"Our history is deeply rooted in crypto-native and hackathon culture, and we maintain that spirit by prioritizing decentralization, security, and open-source principles."
— Dan Reecer, Chief Operating Officer, Wormhole Foundation
Last year, Uniswap released a major cross-chain bridge assessment report, in which Wormhole and Axelar Network stood out among the top six cross-chain bridges globally, earning Uniswap’s trust as foundational infrastructure for governance. The other cross-chain providers—LayerZero, Celer, Debridge, and Multichain—are all leading players in the industry.
Why have Wormhole and Axelar been recognized by Uniswap as decentralized cross-chain experts?
How does Uniswap's governance information get bridged across different blockchain networks?
Is LayerZero a Web2-style company?
TechFlow has invited Dan Reecer, COO of the Wormhole Foundation, to answer these questions. Interestingly, unlike most Web3 projects, Wormhole is a "headless organization" with no founder-led leadership. So within such a structure:
What does Wormhole’s organizational structure look like? Is it similar to the Web3 trifecta: DAO, Foundation, and engineering Labs?
Within this architecture, how does Dan formulate operational strategies and run Wormhole into the successful project it is today?
Dan has extensive experience in operations and marketing from the traditional pharmaceutical industry. From his perspective, what are the differences between centralized and decentralized organizations in terms of operational direction and tool usage?
Why did Wormhole specifically build a gateway for the Cosmos ecosystem? What are Dan’s insights on Polkadot and Cosmos ecosystems?
We also thank members of Wormhole’s Chinese community for raising some user experience issues currently faced by Wormhole:
Progress of Wormhole’s ZK engineering team?
Low liquidity when transferring assets via Wormhole to L2s—how will this be addressed?
What factors determine the speed of cross-chain transactions using Wormhole?
Below is our full conversation with Dan, hoping to clarify some of your confusions.
*Note: Wormhole and虫洞will be used interchangeably throughout the article.
History: From Solana Hackathon, Jump Crypto to Wormhole
TechFlow: Today is my first time interviewing a deep infrastructure project like Wormhole. I’ve taken advice from others to make my questions more specific. To start, could you briefly introduce the history of the Wormhole Foundation?
Dan Reecer:
The origin of the Wormhole project is quite interesting—it emerged from a hackathon about three years ago. We initially conceived it during a Solana hackathon, with the primary goal of bridging the gap between Solana and Ethereum.
It started as a small team within the hackathon, gained recognition and attention, and gradually evolved into a significant initiative. Jump Crypto played a pivotal role by bringing Wormhole into its framework and incubating the project.
Over time, Wormhole expanded its cross-chain coverage to approximately 30 different blockchain networks. Currently, the original team associated with Jump Crypto and Wormhole has transitioned out, and the project is now entirely managed by individuals outside the Jump team. In recent years, multiple entities have contributed to Wormhole’s development:
-
Wormhole Foundation, established in the Cayman Islands, employs around 15 people and provides grants to various teams supporting Wormhole.
-
xLabs, operating in Argentina, manages the relayer infrastructure and serves as one of the network’s guardians and validators.
-
Wormhole Labs, the third core contributor, drives many engineering, product, and business development initiatives.
Additionally, we recently funded two zero-knowledge (ZK) engineering teams, though collaboration details haven't been officially announced yet. These teams are focused on developing Wormhole ZK, including light clients and bridging solutions. Furthermore, multiple teams—including security, community, and Cosmos ecosystem teams—have also contributed to the project.
Our history is deeply rooted in crypto-native and hackathon culture, and we maintain that spirit by prioritizing decentralization, security, and open-source principles.
This commitment to decentralization and open source distinguishes us from competitors who opt for centralized and closed-source approaches.
Despite numerous challenges, we firmly believe that proper decentralization and openness at the infrastructure layer are crucial for ensuring security and scalability throughout our continued growth.
Operations of a Headless Decentralized Organization
TechFlow: Could you share Wormhole’s organizational structure—typically divided into DAO, Foundation, and Labs?
Dan Reecer:
A DAO has not yet launched. We plan to implement both a DAO and an on-chain treasury simultaneously. This project is unique because, in the traditional sense, we lack a conventional founder. While someone named Hendrick was involved early on, he is no longer part of the project. Now it is a founder-less initiative. Around 12 individuals across different teams form leadership groups, collaborating extensively to lead product development, engineering, and business expansion. The organizational setup is clearly decentralized.
TechFlow: Given Wormhole’s competitive landscape and its leadership position in a field filled with messaging protocols and continuous hackathons, I’m particularly interested in Wormhole’s operational strategy.
Considering your corporate management background and clear expertise in Web2 marketing strategy and operations, how do you operate within a decentralized, headless organization like Wormhole?
Could you share your personal approach and highlight the differences between Web2 and Web3 operations?
Dan Reecer:
That’s a great question. The current work dynamics are very different. As mentioned earlier, we regularly collaborate with about five or six teams, creating a dynamic environment unlike traditional hierarchical structures where managers assign tasks. Coordination works more like working groups—individuals from different teams come together to complete specific projects or launches. This involves active participation through calls, Slack channels, and similar platforms.
Another notable aspect is the importance of goal-setting, which isn’t common in crypto compared to traditional companies. Based on my experience at Eli Lilly, companies place strong emphasis on setting annual and quarterly goals, as well as individual objectives. My corporate background gave me deep exposure to century-old institutions, so integrating those practices into a decentralized ecosystem presents challenges.
However, using systems like OKRs (Objectives and Key Results), aligning everyone around shared quarterly goals, is both challenging and rewarding.
Corporate experience has proven invaluable for implementing coordinated strategies—including collaborating with leaders across teams to define strategy, set goals, motivate team members, and celebrate achievements.
This contrasts sharply with the specific hierarchies in enterprises, emphasizing individual coordination and decentralized structures as key distinctions.
TechFlow: I understand the challenges of balancing user-facing operations, tracking an evolving tech stack, and keeping up with market trends—especially in the fast-moving crypto space. With recent developments like BTC ETFs and crypto regulations, how do you balance these operational aspects within the Wormhole Foundation?
Dan Reecer:
Yes, you're referring to the various project management tools we use internally, such as Notion and Slack.
Over time, I've identified the most effective communication tools, with Slack being the clear winner. Although not decentralized, its efficiency surpasses that of decentralized alternatives. While some teams (like Polkadot) prioritize decentralization and adopt decentralized tools, such methods may be less efficient, especially in mobile functionality. Given Slack’s superior performance, we rely on it for our communication needs.
Ensuring everyone is on the same page is critical. For tracking product documentation and strategic files, we use Notion to organize information in an easily accessible and trackable manner.
Project management is another key area, for which we use ClickUp.
Bringing everyone onto the same project management tool and consistently using it is essential to keeping projects on track. To support this, we have a dedicated project manager overseeing all initiatives, conducting weekly status checks, and ensuring timely project launches and milestone completions.
This approach forms the foundation of our operational strategy.
Four Products of Wormhole
TechFlow: Wormhole encompasses multiple product lines. Could you briefly introduce each product and explain its function?
Dan Reecer:
Wormhole Messaging is the core product of our ecosystem, often categorized in the industry as a bridge. However, it is actually a message transmission protocol upon which bridges like AllBridge, Mayan, and Portal are built.
Messaging Protocol
It must be emphasized that Wormhole functions as a messaging protocol. Currently, about 10 bridges are built on the Wormhole protocol. Underneath lies a messaging layer capable of transmitting various forms of data across blockchains. This data can include token-related information or non-token data.
Uniswap’s governance is an example of non-token bridging. Uniswap uses Wormhole across five instances, leveraging the protocol to broadcast governance decisions across chains. They use Ethereum as the home chain and deploy roughly 15–20 units on other chains. When a governance decision is made on Ethereum, Wormhole Messaging propagates it across all connected chains.
Another case involves Pyth, the second-largest oracle after Chainlink. Pyth’s entire oracle network relies on Wormhole Messaging to distribute price feeds from its Solana fork to about 40 different chains.
At a higher level, Wormhole Messaging serves as a foundational platform for various applications.
Technically, messages are verified by the Guardian Network—a group of 19 validators responsible for verifying the authenticity and quality of each message.
After verification, at least 13 out of the 19 validators must agree on a message’s validity before it is forwarded to the destination chain. This technical mechanism underpins Wormhole Messaging, making it a robust infrastructure layer for building diverse applications.
Wormhole Gateway
The Wormhole Gateway you mentioned was developed for dual purposes.
First, it enhances the overall security of the Wormhole network.
Second, its primary function is to serve as a gateway to and from the Cosmos ecosystem.
Integrating new blockchains into Wormhole is challenging because one of the 19 Guardians must run a full node of the new chain every night.
Wormhole Gateway solves this by allowing any new Cosmos chain to seamlessly connect to the Wormhole network via IBC, enabling excellent scalability within the Cosmos ecosystem.
Wormhole Gateway is a component within the broader Wormhole network, distinct from Wormhole’s overall engine.
A notable difference compared to Axelar Network is that their entire bridging network is built on a Cosmos-based chain.
Wormhole Connect
Regarding Wormhole Connect, it is known as an in-app widget that addresses a historical challenge faced by apps like AAVE. Traditionally, users were redirected to external bridges to transfer funds, leading to user drop-off and reduced revenue. To solve this, Wormhole enables developers to embed a bridge directly into their app with just three lines of code. Users can seamlessly bridge funds without leaving the application.
Wormhole Queries
Finally, Wormhole Queries was launched three weeks ago. This innovative product functions similarly to an oracle, but for on-chain data. Chainlink and Pyth are oracles that bring off-chain data onto blockchains, whereas Wormhole Queries introduces a new primitive for DeFi. It allows other blockchains to efficiently and cost-effectively query data from different blockchains. The product has seen strong demand, with over a hundred applications expressing interest within the first few weeks.
Multi-Ecosystem: Cosmos, Ethereum, Solana
TechFlow: I assume you interact with various networks such as Ethereum, Cosmos, Solana, and Polkadot. You previously worked in the Polkadot ecosystem and now see Wormhole’s connection with Cosmos. Could you compare Cosmos and Polkadot? I’ve heard there’s bullish sentiment around Cosmos for 2024. Could you explain why? Or more precisely, why did Wormhole build a dedicated Gateway for Cosmos?
Dan Reecer:
Yes, we developed Wormhole Gateway for Cosmos because the Cosmos ecosystem is highly active. Notable teams like Osmosis have recently launched, showing major developments—such as the WBTC chain team. Launching Wormhole Gateway allows us to scale seamlessly within this ecosystem without incurring additional infrastructure costs when adding new chains—a concept similar to a router chain.
A similar concept has been implemented in the Polkadot ecosystem, where teams like Moonbeam and Acala independently built routers to facilitate information flow in and out of their chains and connect with any other chain in the Polkadot ecosystem. This approach benefits both sides by increasing network traffic and enhancing our scalability within Polkadot.
Reflecting on my roughly four years in the Polkadot ecosystem, I observed shortcomings in business development and marketing. The focus on engineering overshadowed the need for effective marketing and sales efforts.
In contrast, Cosmos has made significant progress in these areas, benefiting from longer launch timelines and leadership changes that enabled recent growth.
As part of the Wormhole team, I appreciate the advantage of being central and neutral, allowing us to observe and participate in various ecosystems. Currently, Solana and Ethereum are the most active, with Ethereum’s Layer 2s following closely behind, placing Cosmos third. Recent ecosystem developments are evident on Wormhole Scan, which offers deep visualization of token flows across networks.
Wormhole Scan's Snapshot of Cross Chain Volume
Wormhole’s unique position allows us to witness trends firsthand. Notably, Ethereum transfers primarily flow to Solana and Sui. Starting from Solana, our initial goal was connecting Solana and Ethereum—a foundation that significantly contributed to our growth in the industry’s most active ecosystems.
Competitors: LayerZero is a Web2 Company in the Web3 Space
TechFlow: Regarding bridge competitors in the industry, I recall that in your podcast with the Crypto Coin Show, you briefly mentioned LayerZero, emphasizing its centralization resembles a Web2 company rather than a Web3 one. Could you elaborate on the reasoning behind this view?
Dan Reecer:
A key reference is the Uniswap Bridge Assessment Report. Recognizing the complexity of letting the community vote on bridge selection, the Uniswap Foundation commissioned a group of impartial third-party researchers with deep technical expertise.
Over several months, they evaluated six different cross-chain protocols, including Wormhole, Axelar Network, and LayerZero. The report focused heavily on decentralization and security, with Wormhole emerging as the top-rated protocol due to its operation via 19 guardians and open-source code.
Another protocol, Axelar Network, was also approved by Uniswap, reflecting its open-source and decentralized nature.
However, the other four bridges were denied access to Uniswap governance unless substantial changes were made.
One major reason LayerZero was rejected is its operational structure: it is controlled by a centralized 2-of-2 multi-sig, posing potential risks of transaction censorship and fund theft.
In contrast, both Wormhole and Axelar Network prioritize decentralization and open-source principles. The report also highlighted a significant flaw in LayerZero—its closed-source code, akin to large companies like Twitter, Google, and Apple.
In an industry where decentralization and open source are paramount, relying on a closed-source model raises concerns about transparency and security.
Therefore, the Uniswap Bridge Assessment Committee expressed reservations about LayerZero, deeming it a risky choice for users due to its lack of transparency and decentralized operations.
Three Questions from Wormhole’s Chinese Community
TechFlow: According to current information, Wormhole plans to integrate ZK technology in 2024 to enable fully trustless transfers between major networks. How is progress coming along?
Dan Reecer: We’re about to release announcements soon—I’m working on them today. Several engineering teams have already been funded, focusing on zero-knowledge (ZK) technology. We will announce a major hardware partner who will collaborate with us to enhance hardware supporting ZK technology. Additionally, we’re advancing a plan where ZK bridges will leverage light clients. Our Ethereum light client is nearly complete, followed by announcements for light clients on various other chains.
This development will allow us to launch several fully trustless corridors between chains.
We are actively developing light clients for Mantle, Sui, and several other chains—ambitious goals with potentially significant industry impact. These are ongoing initiatives, and within the next two weeks, a wealth of new ZK-related information will be released.
TechFlow: Wormhole assets suffer from low liquidity across different Layer 2 solutions, resulting in poor user experience. How does Wormhole plan to address this, and will the liquidity layer help improve the situation?
Dan Reecer:
That’s a great question—the real answer lies in the liquidity layer. We are currently building this product and striving to launch it as quickly as possible.
Historically, Wormhole bridges used wrapped assets to facilitate transfers. The new liquidity layer aims to provide users with a native-to-native transfer experience. We recently launched this technology and will formally announce it this Wednesday. It enables native ETH and native-wrapped ETH transfers between six top Ethereum mainnet and L2 chains, including Optimism and Arbitrum.
For users transferring assets across these chains, this marks a significant improvement in user experience. Looking ahead, our goal is to expand the liquidity layer to include virtually any asset with native liquidity on both sides. We aim to minimize reliance on token wrapping as much as possible.
While certain assets (like Ethereum and Solana) have immutable contracts preventing burning, we plan to roll out products involving burn-and-mint mechanisms. For assets like WBTC or USDC, burn-and-mint can be used. However, for Ethereum, wrapping will always be required to transfer it to another chain. Nonetheless, our overall strategy is to prioritize native transfers and incorporate burn-and-mint wherever feasible.
TechFlow: In your discussions on transactions and cross-chain corridors, what factors influence the timing or duration of such transactions?
Dan Reecer:
Transaction speed depends on the finality of the source chain. For example, the Layer 2 solution Polygon may experience prolonged transaction times. Even on Ethereum mainnet, block times can stretch up to 20 minutes. To address this, our liquidity layer includes a “fast transfer” product. This feature accelerates fund transfers by having counterparties assume settlement risk, offering users near-instantaneous transfers. Users opting for fast transfer will pay a small fee for the expedited service.
Lastly, I’d like to share an update on Wormhole messaging activity. If you visit wormhole.com/stats and scroll down to the second chart, you’ll see we’ve just crossed the 900 million message milestone—an impressive industry record. We expect to reach 1 billion messages within the next one to two months. This statistic is a profound indicator of our platform’s widespread adoption. For community members and readers interested in more data, the Wormhole Scan page offers even more compelling insights.
Over 900M messages were transmitted by Wormhole messaging protocol
Further Reading:
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
深潮TechFlow
