“Unlike today’s landscape where tokens are associated with particular apps, they may be increasingly used to access the income of particular solver(s) who may participate in one or more independent apps. As intent-based apps for cross-chain value transfers (@AcrossProtocol, @deBridgeFinance’s DLN, @hashflow, @ConnextNetwork, @Chainflip, @Uniswap X, etc.) request similar capabilities from solvers, it’s reasonable to expect the same solvers to participate in many.”- 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐘𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐀𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒.

Our Year Ahead for Infrastructure 2024 provides a Comprehensive Deep-Dive into the following 6 Topics:

𝐓𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜 𝟏: 𝐋𝟐 𝐖𝐚𝐫𝐬

🔷 Analysis of @Blast_L2, Top Catalysts for the Next Potential Market Meltdown, and the Increasingly Fierce Competition Between Rollups.

🔷 Emerging Trend of L2 Ecosystems Becoming Siloed - Dissecting @arbitrum, @Optimism, @base, @zksync, @0xMantle, @Starknet, @0xPolygon, and More.

🔷 @ethereum Alignment: The Need for Alternative DA to Achieve Scalability & Top Protocols with Competitive Products.

🔷 In-depth Research Covering Value Accrual: From ETH, L2 Tokens, to Alternative DAs - Explaining Different Designs of Fee Generation and Future Rollup Constructions.

🔷 Excursion into the Competitive Landscape Between L1s Featuring @monad_xyz, @SeiNetwork, @berachain, @SuiNetwork, and @Aptos_Network.

𝐓𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜 𝟐: 𝐒𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐒𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐜𝐤

🔷 Thorough Review of the State of @solana - Evaluating Benefits and Drawbacks of Solana’s Architecture, the Evolving Fee Landscape, and the Changing Relationship Between NFTs and the Price of $SOL.

🔷 Firedancer & Frankendancer: Concise Excerpt on @jump_firedancer, Latest Improvements & Performance Updates, and Frankendancer Architecture.

🔷 Payments: Where Solana Can Excel - Assessment of Payment Activity & Infrastructure, Analysis of Payment Apps and Integrations spotlighting @sphere_labs, @getcode, @SlingMoney, @Shopify Integrations, and Many More.

🔷OPOS: Only Possible on Solana - Review of Apps Unique to Solana Featuring the Crankless Limit Orderbook DEX @PhoenixTrade, the consumer-facing App & cNFT platform for creators @drip_haus, the Liquidator DAO @sanctumso Focused on Solana LSTs, and More.

𝐓𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜 𝟑: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬-𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭-𝐁𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬.

🔷 Decline of For-Profit Token Bridges & Thorough Review of USDC’s Omnichain Standard CCTP Changing the Bridging Landscape.

🔷 Intent-Based Future of Bridging Highlighting @AcrossProtocol: The Most Mature Intent-Based Bridge.

🔷 Where Will Value Accrue?

🔷 Future Outlook: Generalization of Intents and How Lines Between Apps May Get Blurry in an Intent-Centric World.

𝐓𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜 𝟒: 𝐒𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

🔷 Evolution of DEXs into Intent-Based Architectures with a Deep-Dive into UniswapX.

🔷 50 Shades of Solver Decentralization: Solver’s Competition, Decentralization, and Requirements.

🔷 Solvers Dominating Intent-Based DEX Volume.

𝐓𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜 𝟓: 𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧 & 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐩 - 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐁𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐬 𝐒𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐔𝐩

🔷 Thorough Review of @THORChain & Its Evolution, Synths, and Protocol-Owned Liquidity.

🔷 What Are Synths Good For?

🔷 Future Outlook: What’s Next for Thorchain in 2024?

🔷 Deep-Dive into @Chainflip: Differentiators to THORChain Evaluating Just-in-Time (JIT) AMM, MEV in Chainflip, and Much More.

𝐓𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜 𝟔: 𝐄𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐮𝐦’𝐬 𝐑𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐚𝐩

🔷 Hard Forks Ahead - Examining Two Major Upcoming Hard Forks: Deneb-Cancun Hardfork & Prague-Electra Hardfork.

🔷 EIP-4844 and Its Effects on Data Publication - Case Study of One of the Most Anticipated Upgrades in Ethereum Since EIP-1559 and The Merge.

𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲:

“𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬-𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭-𝐁𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬.”

CCTP and canonical bridges have distinct advantages and disadvantages. For one, they solve most of the liquidity/ UX fragmentation issues by increasing the share of canonically denominated assets. On the other hand, they are slow due to their conservative nature. Rollup bridges may take hours or weeks and CCTP may take tens of minutes to hours to be validated.

However, users want to move fast. Therefore, usage will likely come from back-end services for user-facing apps competing on speed, capital efficiency, and gas costs. As a result, we believe intent-based designs will have a competitive advantage.

@AcrossProtocol stands out as the most mature intent-based bridge. Particularly active in pathways between Ethereum and its rollups coupled with rising adoption of rollups, Across has gained substantial market share.

Our overarching thesis that the future of cross-chain will be intent-based can be articulated using @AcrossProtocol as an example.

Intent-based liquidity networks are unique in the ability to tap into off-chain liquidity through an open, permissionless marketplace of off-chain actors known as solvers.

The idea: Users outsource bridging risks to solvers. Solvers compete to fulfill cross-chain transfer intents and in return capture value through fees.

The Flow of Cross-Chain Transfer via @AcrossProtocol can be simplified into 3 stages:

1. 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: Users deposit assets in an escrow at the origin to express their cross-chain transfer intent, with implicit fees for the relayer upon fulfillment.

2. 𝐅𝐮𝐥𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: Relayers vie to identify and fulfill user intent at the destination to capture fees, using off-chain liquidity and paying from their own pockets.

3. 𝐒𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: The fulfilled transaction at the destination is relayed back to the origin for validation. The winning relayer unlocks assets in the escrow, validated by Across’ UMA’s optimistic oracle to reduce on-chain gas costs.

𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐀𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭: Users' cross-transfer intents are immediately served by relayers who are compensated afterward. This guarantees users maximum speed while enabling relayers to minimize operational costs.

Tx-based bridges' transfer time is limited by finality on both the origin and destination chains. Intent-based bridges overcome this by using relayer competition. Relayers can fulfill user intent at the destination even before the transaction is finalized on the origin chain. This results in faster swaps due to increased relayer competition.

Settlement in @AcrossProtocol is optimized for gas minimization, with repayments occurring periodically (every 2-4 hours) and in batches to reduce amortized gas costs. Further enhanced by @AcrossProtocol' use of UMA's optimistic oracle for validation.

Reliability is crucial for a liquidity network like @AcrossProtocol. To ensure constant availability of liquidity at the destination, the protocol assists relayers in rebalancing their liquidity. @AcrossProtocol achieves this by utilizing on-chain liquidity pooled by passive LPs, adopting a hub-and-spoke model with a central pool on Ethereum's mainnet and smaller spoke pools on destination chains.

The protocol proactively manages rebalancing by periodically adjusting liquidity between spoke and hub pools. This flexibility allows relayers to receive repayments on their chosen chain, irrespective of users' deposit locations. The pools also serve as backups for off-chain liquidity in case relayers miss serving users' intents.

𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤:

Currently using canonical bridges, @AcrossProtocol plans to shift to the universal bridge adapter, UBA, for liquidity rebalancing. UBA will involve off-chain relayers, with incentives for balanced pools and penalties for relayers withdrawing from under-balanced spoke pools.

Post-UBA, Across won't be bound to a specific bridging method, allowing relayers to choose any bridge and supporting chains without canonical bridges.

Lastly, an Excerpt from last year’s 2023 Infra Report uncovering emerging opportunities and pointing out trends early 👇

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。