Against the seller's locking: It defines the opening model of the chain link under the treasure.

In this era of intelligent mushroom linker chains, the demand for third-party inter-chain bridges of various assets has also increased. Ecosystems and blockchain projects typically adopt a simple "peace and burn" chain connection that offers unlimited control over the chains involved by a single person. CornWhat a few people have talked about is that vendors pose a huge risk to property security and blockchain ecosystems that are hard to solve once.

In this article, we first discuss in detail the different security risks and ecological risks of blockchain that exist when using a traditional cross ethnic solution and lockdown, and second, we ask for an open source tool. . The inter-chain bridge model really determines the preferences of the consumer, developer, and the blockchain ecosystem rather than the short-term view of a bridge.We call on all major inter-chain bridge manufacturers, blockchain environmentalists, blockchain application designers, thought leaders and users to embrace the open source inter-chain bridge model to have a future relationship.

Improve the history of third-party heritage inter-chain bridges

Retaining all market assets while cutting a chain is an important demand when old material from one chain needs to be transferred to another chain. For example, if a project wants to move on to multiple developments, it is often necessary to cross the chain of contracts and use them for profitable mining or management (like $ SUSHI or other DeFi connected devices). Another example, new EVM-enabled channels often require the crosslinking of certain key assets (WETH, USDT, USDC, etc.) to support the functionality of the DeFi ecosystem.

Here is the "Native Asset Cross-Chain Bridge" to play and the "coin and destroy" function is as follows:

From the base chain to the target:The user “pins” the old assets of the chain into a security contract administered by an organization (decentralized or centralized), then the organization “launches” the graphic design of the old assets for the users of the project.

Replace the chain link through the chain link.The user "breaks" the process reporting tool hit on the target link, and after acknowledging the damage, the content "releases" the user the same amount of property closed by strings (excluding connection fees).

To facilitate the discussion below, the terms can be borrowed from the network's research community and published below:Who manages the assetscalled "bridge structure??

For blockchains such as Avalanche or Polygon, or sidechains or two-tier stackers such as Arbitrum and Optimism, a legacy cross-chain bridge is typically configured to connect to Ethereum, WETH, USDT, USDC, DAI, and more. Other "bridge models" of cross chain bridges are available with the same level of security as the approved base chain (with a few exceptions), or in the case of a second level winding, it is securely attached to the first layer. Ethereum layer. Since the confluence is Ethereum, the star-shaped topology is formed by the chain and the underlying cross bridge.

However, this star topology cannot meet the requirements of any treasure chain.

If the token is not the first time out of Ethereum, and need a direct legacy crosschain bridge from Avalanche to BSC for example, but there is no meaningful data on the legacy crosschain bridge to support this information.

If the selected channel does not work a partition and cannot enter the property through the bridge, of course, there is no way to meet the needs of the chain of green projects created by this chain. Examples include Moonriver, Celo, Oasis Emerald, and BSC (the BSC bridge is currently closed). In this case, not only the contractual assets of the project, but also the key assets such as USDT / USDC / WETH cannot be connected to the chain.

The result of third party assets crossing the link in the chain is to meet these demands. Instead of using a “standard bridge” which reflects the level of security of the lower chain, we create our own concept and model of security and use our own “standard bridge” to take out and withdraw coins. In many existing solutions, such as Anyswap, the “model bridge” is essentially the initial multi-signature managed by a signature group. For Celer cBridge, the “model bridge” is the State Guard Network (SGN), the PoS blockchain itself based on Tendermint.

The most important question when choosing a bridge on a chain

Now let's say the Oasis Emerald DEX wants to record $ ROSE / $ USDT. How to use the string above $ USDT? Or, if the DeFi project wants to expand to BSC and wants to cross its own contractual equipment, which bridge should it use to create the symbol design?

Each bridge around today has created its own style of graphic design, and these tokens are inconsistent. It is a very ironic fact.Chain fundamentals are important for recognizing blockchain interactions, but they do not interact with each other.

The problem in this case is that you can only select one. to the right?

Should you choose Anyswap, cBridge, Wormhole or another bridge? If you start planning a comparison table to compare their security model, UI / UX, SDK, integration support, future scalability and cost, etc.I do not want that.

Yes, this is all important, but you shouldn't make the mistake of picking the top spot!

As a DeFi / GameFi / NFT / Metaverse / dApp / blockchain developer, the most important question to ask when deciding to adopt a third party legacy crosslink chain is the following solution:

Will the seller close it?

Locking the provider on the chain link will affect the state of DApps.

Unfortunately, all of the existing third-party inter-chain bridges pose problems for providers. So for builders, if they choose to use integrated circuits, for better or for worse, their plans will be limited to this bridge. This is because, strictly speaking, the cross-bridge option is the launcher of the same design token for ownership of the target.

Let's start with the immense climate legacy. DEX was believed to have been developed by blockchain and now relies on the only version of the $ USDT card developed by SuperNice Bridge. What if the "model bridge" of the SuperNice bridge had extensive security procedures that could allow the hijacker to leave an unlimited amount of $ USDT and deposit all assets in DEX? In other words, we have extended our project tokens to multiple chains. Currently, 80% of the tokens are locked in the pool controlled by the bridge. The same security breaches will occur and you will face the most depressing stock market crash ever. Exchange hacking situations can have a huge impact on your assets.

Then comes the question of reliability. What is the congestion happening in the inter-chain system? What if the quality of transversal services deteriorated? What if the bridge over the chain is broken? Users handling project tokens have total problems.

In the end, this type of transport-building bridge on the cable car creates an ecological problem that is not clear.

What if you decided to increase the price?

What if you decided to set a price limit for your users?

What if you don't repeat the user experience and are not happy with the user?

What if we couldn't encourage the use of events for future posts?

What if it does not work with a bridge aggregator or an alternative PLC circuit breaker?

......

What can you do

Yes, there is nothing you can do. The above list is only a small part of the results.to the right.

Open Cross-Chain Bridge Standard: Easily Solve Vendor Lockout

The good news is that the vendor lockout issue can be easily fixed. We co-create "a single heritage planning strategy", put blockchain projects and design communities at the forefront, and select the best heritage that immediately crosses the chain through multiple connecting links.More importantly, there is no additional charge depending on the developer of the project.

On a professional level, the first thing to do is to eliminate the idea of ​​single roulette contracts with chips. In this case, the provider dependency issue arises because only one connection in the chain can provide tokens.

Alternatively, if a project chooses to connect to another channel, the project developer community will need a connection contract.

This type of token contract allows a project to simultaneously allow multiple connections to act as a bridge to the original object of the token contract. This is because all of the cross bridge chains are cast.Same version of the base spec mapping token. DeFi applications may also require declaration of key resources such as USDT / USDC / WETH which support the open chain bridge structure. In addition, each bridge can be robust to operate at the top of the highest casting value based on the DAO rating of safety level, user experience, etc.

Obviously, the project stakeholders are now masters of the inter-chain bridge. So let's go back to the terrible situation mentioned in the previous chapter and look at it.

If one of the cut chains is attacked, which does not result in any restriction, only the remaining casting quota is distributed to the bridge-chain bridge (usually smaller than the bridge-chain bridge section limit) is reduced. All items of contract tokens will be removed, which does not reduce the risk of this issue.

What if one of the links in the chain cannot be used normally? do not worry. There are other link extensions that can help regular users!

What if the cost of a particular bridge is too high? Are the costs too high? UI / UX not intuitive? Is there a specific support? No integration of external ecosystems? Do not worry. The DAO campaign alleviates the financial constraints of connected networks and informs users to use other bridges!

Now it should be clear to everyone that the open legacy crosslinking bridge structure allows multiple crosslinking industries connected to the same property, including the interests of users, dApp developers and their core blockchain ecosystem. .

Join us at the time of the decision! We need you!

What we want to be clear to everyone is that if we publish content today so as not to create specific instructional models, we hope that can be done.Given the robustness of the requirements for such open models.. We look forward to working with every member of the blockchain ecosystem to promote and translate these standards for the better.

For developers of interconnected and interconnected solutions

History has proven too well that only open role models can lead to a win-win situation, and self-esteem only loses it all. We remain open and look forward to working with all cross-chain bridges and blockchain interoperability infrastructure projects to jointly develop this open model and achieve a win-win incident situation.

CAD for a variety of applications

We hope this article will educate everyone about the importance of having a traditional vendor-independent cross-chain solution. If you are considering a combination of hardware sharing or extension in a new chain, whatever link chain you are considering Think about it now, we hope you find a solution that is right for you, not just the search. this. A consumer crosses the chain.

If you have shared vendor-closed tokens, we would like to have the right to work with you to be more open while providing additional support for the loss of the transaction. Do not hesitate to contact us as soon as possible!

Community opinion leader

Join us in communicating the benefits of the Open Native Asset Cross-Chain Bridge model to any manufacturer around the world looking for information and educating them about the risks of closed vendors.

Let's work together to create an open and interactive future!