pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.21797 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-23 · 💻 cs.CR · cs.ET· econ.EM· q-fin.ST

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Connecting Distributed Ledgers: Surveying Novel Interoperability Solutions in On-chain Finance

Hasret Ozan Sevim
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 01:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR cs.ETecon.EMq-fin.ST
keywords blockchain interoperabilitycross-chain protocolson-chain financedistributed ledgersLayerZeroWormholenetwork metricsempirical models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Interoperability protocols connect fragmented ledgers to support on-chain finance.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper surveys cross-chain interoperability solutions to address fragmentation in distributed ledgers, with special attention to on-chain finance applications. It compares the design, mechanisms, consensus methods, and limitations of protocols including LayerZero, Wormhole, Connext, Chainlink Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol, Circle Cross-chain Transfer Protocol, Hop Protocol, Across, Polkadot, and Cosmos. The analysis also explores how financial use cases relate to these interoperability choices. To speed up further study, the work introduces a set of network metrics, sample statistical models, and an overall evaluation framework for performance and financial implications. A reader would care because clearer comparisons could help match suitable protocols to real financial needs and reduce risks in multi-chain environments.

Core claim

The paper establishes that interoperability plays a critical role in enabling efficient and secure communication for the fragmented distributed ledger ecosystem, particularly within on-chain finance. It examines the relationship between financial use and interoperability while comparing the properties of novel cross-chain interoperability protocols (LayerZero, Wormhole, Connext, Chainlink Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol, Circle Cross-chain Transfer Protocol, Hop Protocol, Across, Polkadot, and Cosmos), focusing on their design, mechanisms, consensus, and limitations. To encourage further empirical study, the paper proposes a set of network metrics and sample statistical models and a框架

What carries the argument

The evaluation framework built from network metrics and sample statistical models that compare protocol properties and assess their performance and financial implications.

If this is right

  • Researchers gain concrete metrics to quantify how different protocols affect cross-chain financial transactions.
  • Practitioners can match specific financial use cases to protocols based on their documented design trade-offs and limitations.
  • Empirical studies on on-chain finance can incorporate the sample statistical models to test real-world impacts.
  • Protocol developers receive guidance on areas where current solutions fall short in security or efficiency.
  • The relationship between financial applications and interoperability becomes measurable rather than anecdotal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Widespread use of standardized metrics could lead to industry benchmarks that influence which protocols gain adoption in DeFi.
  • The survey's focus on finance suggests future work might examine how these solutions interact with regulatory compliance across jurisdictions.
  • Testing the models on historical transaction volumes could reveal whether certain protocols reduce costs or risks more effectively than others.
  • Integration challenges with existing financial systems outside blockchains might become a natural next area of study using the same framework.

Load-bearing premise

That the proposed network metrics and statistical models will meaningfully accelerate empirical research on interoperability in on-chain finance.

What would settle it

If researchers apply the proposed metrics to live data on protocol usage and financial transactions but obtain no new or actionable insights into performance differences, the framework would fail to accelerate the intended research.

read the original abstract

This paper emphasizes the critical role of interoperability in enabling efficient and secure communication for the fragmented distributed ledger ecosystem, particularly within on-chain finance. The purpose of this study is to streamline and accelerate empirical research on the intersection of cross-chain interoperability solutions and their impact within on-chain finance. The analysis examines the relationship between financial use and interoperability while comparing the properties of novel cross-chain interoperability protocols (LayerZero, Wormhole, Connext, Chainlink Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol, Circle Cross-chain Transfer Protocol, Hop Protocol, Across, Polkadot, and Cosmos), focusing on their design, mechanisms, consensus, and limitations. To encourage further empirical study, the paper proposes a set of network metrics and sample statistical models and provides a framework for evaluating the performance and financial implications of interoperability solutions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a survey of interoperability solutions for distributed ledgers in on-chain finance. It compares the design, mechanisms, consensus, and limitations of nine protocols (LayerZero, Wormhole, Connext, Chainlink CCIP, Circle CCTP, Hop Protocol, Across, Polkadot, and Cosmos), examines the relationship between financial use and interoperability, and proposes a set of network metrics together with sample statistical models to accelerate empirical research on performance and financial implications.

Significance. If the protocol comparisons are accurate, the survey could serve as a useful reference for navigating the cross-chain landscape. The proposed metrics and models supply a high-level conceptual framework that might guide future empirical work, but their value depends on further specification and validation since the manuscript itself contains no original data or implementations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Proposals for network metrics and statistical models] Section proposing network metrics and statistical models: the metrics (latency, throughput, security assumptions) and models (ordinary regression or graph models) are presented only as generic concepts without precise definitions, equations, parameter choices, or reusable code/data. This leaves the claim that they will accelerate empirical research aspirational rather than immediately actionable.
  2. [Comparative analysis of protocols] Comparative analysis section: the paper states that it examines the relationship between financial use and interoperability while comparing the listed protocols, yet supplies no quantitative data, applied metrics, or verification steps. The resulting analysis therefore remains qualitative and does not directly demonstrate how the comparisons streamline empirical research.
minor comments (1)
  1. A summary table listing the key design, consensus, and limitation attributes of each protocol would improve readability and allow readers to compare the nine solutions at a glance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and for recognizing the manuscript's potential as a reference. We address each major comment below and outline targeted revisions to improve precision and clarity while preserving the survey's scope.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section proposing network metrics and statistical models: the metrics (latency, throughput, security assumptions) and models (ordinary regression or graph models) are presented only as generic concepts without precise definitions, equations, parameter choices, or reusable code/data. This leaves the claim that they will accelerate empirical research aspirational rather than immediately actionable.

    Authors: We agree that the metrics and models require greater specificity to move beyond conceptual framing. In the revised manuscript we will add precise definitions (e.g., latency defined as the time from message submission on the source chain to finality on the destination chain), explicit equations (such as throughput = messages_per_second / average_confirmation_time), example parameter choices drawn from publicly reported protocol data, and a brief discussion of how ordinary least-squares regression or graph-based models can be instantiated using these metrics. As this remains a survey paper, we will not supply executable code or new datasets, but the added formalization will make the framework directly usable by empirical researchers. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Comparative analysis section: the paper states that it examines the relationship between financial use and interoperability while comparing the listed protocols, yet supplies no quantitative data, applied metrics, or verification steps. The resulting analysis therefore remains qualitative and does not directly demonstrate how the comparisons streamline empirical research.

    Authors: The comparative analysis is deliberately qualitative, consistent with the nature of a survey that synthesizes existing protocol documentation rather than generating new measurements. To strengthen the link to empirical work, we will revise the section to include an explicit mapping table that connects each protocol's design choices (consensus, security assumptions, messaging model) to the proposed metrics, together with a short discussion of how these mappings can guide variable selection and hypothesis formulation in subsequent regression or network analyses. We maintain that the structured qualitative comparison already provides a necessary foundation for empirical studies; the revision will make this connection more explicit without introducing original quantitative data. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; descriptive survey with no derivations

full rationale

The manuscript is a literature survey comparing existing cross-chain protocols (LayerZero, Wormhole, etc.) and offering high-level proposals for network metrics and statistical models. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or self-referential predictions appear anywhere in the text. The central claims rest on external literature citations and descriptive comparison rather than any internal reduction to the paper's own inputs. The acceleration claim for empirical research is presented as aspirational rather than demonstrated, but this constitutes an honest limitation of a survey format, not circular reasoning. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a prior fit or self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a survey paper. No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the central claim.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5435 in / 935 out tokens · 35301 ms · 2026-05-15T01:14:30.026162+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: Proc

    Harris, C.G.: Cross-chain technologies: challenges and opportunities for blockchain interoperability. In: Proc. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Omni-layer Intelligent Systems (COINS), pp. 1-6 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/COINS57856.2023.10189298

    work page doi:10.1109/coins57856.2023.10189298 2023

  2. [2]

    ACM Comput

    Wang, G., Wang, Q., Chen, S.: Exploring blockchain interoperability: a systematic survey. ACM Comput. Surveys 55(13), 290 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1145/3582882

    work page doi:10.1145/3582882 2023

  3. [3]

    Sustainability 13(20), 11132 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011132

    Punathumkandi, S., Sundaram, V.M., Panneer, P.: Interoperable permissioned-blockchain with sustainable performance. Sustainability 13(20), 11132 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011132

    work page doi:10.3390/su132011132 2021

  4. [4]

    Springer, Cham (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03035-3

    Xu, X., Weber, I., Staples, M.: Architecture for Blockchain Applications. Springer, Cham (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03035-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03035-3 2019

  5. [5]

    https://research.chain.link/whitepaper-v1.pdf

    Ellis, S., Juels, A., Nazarov, S.: Chainlink: a decentralized oracle network (2017). https://research.chain.link/whitepaper-v1.pdf

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Sch¨ ar, F.: Decentralized finance: on blockchain- and smart contract-based financial markets. FRB St. Louis Rev. 103(2), 153-174 (2021) https://doi.org/10.20955/r.103.153-74

    work page doi:10.20955/r.103.153-74 2021

  7. [7]

    IEEE/CAA J

    Duan L., Sun Y., Ni W., Ding W., Liu J., Wang W.: Attacks against cross-chain systems and defense approaches: a contemporary survey. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica 10(8), 1647–1667 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/JAS.2023.123642

    work page doi:10.1109/jas.2023.123642 2023

  8. [8]

    ACM Comput

    Wegner, P.: Interoperability. ACM Comput. Surveys 28(1), 285-287 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1145/234313.234424

    work page doi:10.1145/234313.234424 1996

  9. [9]

    ACM Comput

    Belchior, R., et al.: A survey on blockchain interoperability: past, present, and future trends. ACM Comput. Surveys 54(8), Article 168 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3471140 22

    work page doi:10.1145/3471140 2022

  10. [10]

    CLEI Electron

    Llamb´ ıas, G., et al.: Blockchain interoperability: a feature-based classification framework and challenges ahead. CLEI Electron. J. 25 (2023) https://doi.org/10.19153/cleiej.25.3.4

    work page doi:10.19153/cleiej.25.3.4 2023

  11. [11]

    https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22120520.v1

    Llamb´ ıas, G., et al.: Gateway-based interoperability for DLT (2023). https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22120520.v1

    work page doi:10.36227/techrxiv.22120520.v1 2023

  12. [12]

    In: Proc

    Robinson, P., Ramesh, R.: General purpose atomic crosschain transactions. In: Proc. 3rd Conf. Blockchain Research & Applications for Innovative Networks and Services (BRAINS), pp. 61-68 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/BRAINS52497.2021.9569837

    work page doi:10.1109/brains52497.2021.9569837 2021

  13. [13]

    Cluster Comput

    Bishnoi, M., et al.: Hash time locked contract based asset exchange solution for probabilistic public blockchains. Cluster Comput. 25, 1-13 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-022-03643-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10586-022-03643-x 2022

  14. [14]

    Information 13(6) (2022) https://doi.org/10.3390/info13010006

    Caldarelli, G.: Wrapping trust for interoperability: a preliminary study of wrapped tokens. Information 13(6) (2022) https://doi.org/10.3390/info13010006

    work page doi:10.3390/info13010006 2022

  15. [15]

    In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pp

    Harz, D., Boman, M.: The scalability of trustless trust. In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pp. 1-18 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58820-8 19

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-58820-8 2018

  16. [16]

    NYU Stern Working Paper (2021) https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3789425

    Bakos, Y., Halaburda, H.: Permissioned vs permissionless blockchain platforms: tradeoffs in trust and performance. NYU Stern Working Paper (2021) https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3789425

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.3789425 2021

  17. [17]

    IET Commun

    Kotey, S.D., et al.: Blockchain interoperability: the state of heterogeneous blockchain-to-blockchain communication. IET Commun. 17(8), 891-914 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1049/cmu2.12594

    work page doi:10.1049/cmu2.12594 2023

  18. [18]

    Zilnieks, V., Erins, I.: Cross-chain bridges: a potential solution to standardising DLT in payment systems. Inf. Technol. Manage. Sci. 26(1), 27–34 (2023) https://doi.org/10.7250/itms-2023-0004

    work page doi:10.7250/itms-2023-0004 2023

  19. [19]

    In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pp

    Zamyatin, A., et al.: SoK: communication across distributed ledgers. In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pp. 3-36 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64331-0 1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-64331-0 2021

  20. [20]

    In: Proc

    Mafike, S.S., Mawela, T.: Requirements for interoperable blockchain systems: a systematic literature review. In: Proc. DBB 2023, pp. 41–55 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42317-8 4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-42317-8 2023

  21. [21]

    IACR ePrint (2021) https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/1589

    McCorry, P., et al.: SoK: validating bridges as a scaling solution for blockchains. IACR ePrint (2021) https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/1589

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    arXiv (2022) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.16209

    Lee, S.-S., et al.: SoK: not quite water under the bridge: review of cross-chain bridge hacks. arXiv (2022) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.16209

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.16209 2022

  23. [23]

    IEEE Trans

    Ren, K., et al.: Interoperability in blockchain: a survey. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 35(12), 12750–12769 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2023.3275220

    work page doi:10.1109/tkde.2023.3275220 2023

  24. [24]

    In: Proc

    Pillai, B., et al.: Blockchain interoperability: performance and security trade-offs. In: Proc. ACM SenSys, pp. 1196–1201 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3560905.3568176

    work page doi:10.1145/3560905.3568176 2022

  25. [25]

    In: Blockchains and the Token Economy, pp

    Pfister, M., Kannengießer, N., Sunyaev, A.: Finding the right balance: technical and political decen- tralization in the token economy. In: Blockchains and the Token Economy, pp. 53–86. Springer, Cham (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95108-5 3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95108-5 2022

  26. [26]

    IET Blockchain 4(1), 18–29 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1049/blc2.12040

    Ming, L., et al.: A research on cross-chain and interoperation methods of fusion protocol. IET Blockchain 4(1), 18–29 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1049/blc2.12040

    work page doi:10.1049/blc2.12040 2024

  27. [27]

    Han, P., et al.: A survey on cross-chain technologies. Distrib. Ledger Technol. 2(2), 15:1–15:30 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1145/3573896 23

    work page doi:10.1145/3573896 2023

  28. [28]

    Bokolo, A.J.: Exploring interoperability of distributed ledger and decentralized technology adoption in virtual enterprises. Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manage. 20, 685–718 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257- 022-00561-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10257- 2022

  29. [29]

    Pillai, B., et al.: Cross-chain interoperability among blockchain-based systems using transactions. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 35, e23 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888920000314

    work page doi:10.1017/s0269888920000314 2020

  30. [30]

    (2022) http://fcst.ceaj.org/EN/Y2022/V16/I10/2177

    Meng, B., et al.: Survey on cross-chain protocols of blockchain. (2022) http://fcst.ceaj.org/EN/Y2022/V16/I10/2177

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    ACM Comput

    Falazi, G., et al.: Cross-chain smart contract invocations: a systematic multi-vocal literature review. ACM Comput. Surveys 56(6), 142:1-142:38 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1145/3638045

    work page doi:10.1145/3638045 2024

  32. [32]

    https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.171073616.69560624/v1

    Llamb´ ıas, G., Gonz´ alez, L., Ruggia, R.: Blockchain interoperability patterns (2024). https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.171073616.69560624/v1

    work page doi:10.36227/techrxiv.171073616.69560624/v1 2024

  33. [33]

    In: Blockchains and the Token Economy, pp

    Williams, I.: Cross-chain blockchain networks, compatibility standards, and interoperability stan- dards. In: Blockchains and the Token Economy, pp. 150-165 (2020) https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1- 7998-3632-2.ch010

    work page doi:10.4018/978-1- 2020

  34. [34]

    In: Trust Models for Next-Generation Blockchain Ecosystems, pp

    Talib, M.A., et al.: Interoperability among heterogeneous blockchains: a systematic literature review. In: Trust Models for Next-Generation Blockchain Ecosystems, pp. 135–166 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-75107-4 6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-75107-4 2021

  35. [35]

    arXiv (2021) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.09494

    Robinson, P.: Survey of crosschain communications protocols. arXiv (2021) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.09494

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.09494 2021

  36. [37]

    In: DBB 2023, pp

    Bayraktar, S., G¨ oren, S.: Design principles for interoperability of private blockchains. In: DBB 2023, pp. 15–26 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16035-6 2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-16035-6 2023

  37. [38]

    Wang, W., et al.: Efficient cross-chain transaction processing on blockchains. Appl. Sci. 12(9) (2022) https://doi.org/10.3390/app12094434

    work page doi:10.3390/app12094434 2022

  38. [39]

    IACR ePrint (2023) https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/1898

    Mazor, O., Rottenstreich, O.: An empirical study of cross-chain arbitrage in decentralized exchanges. IACR ePrint (2023) https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/1898

    work page 2023

  39. [40]

    Yin, L., et al.: Interopera: an efficient cross-chain trading protocol. Comput. J. 66(7), 1609–1621 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxac030

    work page doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxac030 2023

  40. [41]

    Cluster Comput

    Sober, M., et al.: Decentralized cross-blockchain asset transfers with transfer confirmation. Cluster Comput. 26, 2129–2146 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-022-03737-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10586-022-03737-6 2023

  41. [42]

    arXiv (2023) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.14290

    Pourpouneh, M., et al.: Automated market makers for cross-chain DeFi and sharded blockchains. arXiv (2023) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.14290

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.14290 2023

  42. [43]

    Monika, Bhatia, R.: Cross-blockchain decentralized asset transfer protocol for public blockchains. Int. J. Commun. Syst. (2023) https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.5709

    work page doi:10.1002/dac.5709 2023

  43. [44]

    In: Proc

    Miyaji, H., Yamamoto, H.: Efficient cross-chain communication protocol across blockchain ledgers. In: Proc. IEEE ICCE, pp. 1–4 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCE59016.2024.10444248 24

    work page doi:10.1109/icce59016.2024.10444248 2024

  44. [45]

    In: Risks and Security of Internet and Systems, pp

    Mars, R., et al.: Towards a secure cross-blockchain smart contract architecture. In: Risks and Security of Internet and Systems, pp. 127–132 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31108-6 10

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-31108-6 2023

  45. [46]

    Wireless Pers

    Madhuri, S., Nagalakshmi, V.: A novel blockchain strategy for third-party aware cross-chain transaction framework. Wireless Pers. Commun. (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-023-10588-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11277-023-10588-w 2023

  46. [47]

    Sensors 23, 1864 (2023)

    Lu, S., et al.: CCIO: A cross-chain interoperability approach for consortium blockchains based on oracle. Sensors 23, 1864 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/s23041864

    work page doi:10.3390/s23041864 2023

  47. [48]

    IET Blockchain 3(3), 149–158 (2023)

    Li, L., et al.: A review of blockchain cross-chain technology. IET Blockchain 3(3), 149–158 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1049/blc2.12032

    work page doi:10.1049/blc2.12032 2023

  48. [49]

    Lee, Y., et al.: Atomic cross-chain settlement model for central banks digital currency. Inf. Sci. 580, 838–856 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.09.040

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ins.2021.09.040 2021

  49. [50]

    Bokolo, A.J., Sylva, W., Watat, J.K., Misra, S.: A framework for standardization of distributed ledger technologies for interoperable data integration and alignment in sustainable smart cities. J. Knowl. Econ. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01554-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s13132-023-01554-9 2023

  50. [51]

    In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Metaverse Computing, Networking and Applications (MetaCom), pp

    Jiang, S., Cao, J., Wu, H.: Fast and atomic cross-blockchain asset exchange for metaverse inter- operability. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Metaverse Computing, Networking and Applications (MetaCom), pp. 177–184 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/MetaCom57706.2023.00044

    work page doi:10.1109/metacom57706.2023.00044 2023

  51. [52]

    Future Gener

    Hei, Y., et al.: Practical AgentChain: A compatible cross-chain exchange system. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 130, 207–218 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2021.11.029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2021.11.029 2022

  52. [53]

    Guo, H., et al.: A framework for efficient cross-chain token transfers in blockchain networks. J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci. 36(2), 101968 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2024.101968

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2024.101968 2024

  53. [54]

    IEEE Internet Things J

    Darshan, M., et al.: An architecture that enables cross-chain interoperability for next-gen blockchain systems. IEEE Internet Things J. 10(20), 18282–18291 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2023.3279693

    work page doi:10.1109/jiot.2023.3279693 2023

  54. [55]

    Cryptography 8(1), 6 (2024)

    Chen, C., et al.: Privacy-preserving multi-party cross-chain transaction protocols. Cryptography 8(1), 6 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/cryptography8010006

    work page doi:10.3390/cryptography8010006 2024

  55. [56]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.13871 (2021)

    Zarick, R., Pellegrino, B., Banister, C.: LayerZero: Trustless omnichain interoperability protocol. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.13871 (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.13871

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.13871 2021

  56. [57]

    URL: https://docs.chain.link/ccip/concepts/architecture (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    Chainlink: Cross-chain interoperability protocol. URL: https://docs.chain.link/ccip/concepts/architecture (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [58]

    URL: https://www.circle.com/cross-chain-transfer-protocol (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    Circle: Cross-chain transfer protocol. URL: https://www.circle.com/cross-chain-transfer-protocol (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  58. [59]

    URL: https://developers.circle.com/stablecoins/what-is-usdc (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    Circle: USDC. URL: https://developers.circle.com/stablecoins/what-is-usdc (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  59. [60]

    URL: https://wormhole.com/docs/ (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    Wormhole: Documentation. URL: https://wormhole.com/docs/ (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [61]

    URL: https://docs.connext.network/ (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    Connext. URL: https://docs.connext.network/ (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  61. [62]

    URL: https://docs.gelato.cloud/ (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    Gelato. URL: https://docs.gelato.cloud/ (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  62. [63]

    Whitepaper

    Whinfrey, C.: Hop: Send tokens across rollups. Whitepaper. Available at https://hop.exchange/whitepaper.pdf (2021) 25

    work page 2021

  63. [64]

    Across(2024) https://docs.across.to/concepts/intents-architecture-in-across (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  64. [65]

    https://github.com/UMAprotocol/whitepaper/blob/master/UMA- DVM-oracle-whitepaper.pdf (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    UMA Protocol: UMA DVM oracle whitepaper. https://github.com/UMAprotocol/whitepaper/blob/master/UMA- DVM-oracle-whitepaper.pdf (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  65. [66]

    Available at https://assets.polkadot.network/Polkadot-whitepaper.pdf (2020)

    Wood, G.: Polkadot: Vision for a heterogeneous multi-chain framework. Available at https://assets.polkadot.network/Polkadot-whitepaper.pdf (2020)

    work page 2020

  66. [67]

    URL: https://cosmos.network/whitepaper (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    Cosmos Network: Whitepaper. URL: https://cosmos.network/whitepaper (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  67. [68]

    URL: https://docs.cosmos.network/ibc/v10.1.x/intro (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    Cosmos Network: IBC documentation. URL: https://docs.cosmos.network/ibc/v10.1.x/intro (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  68. [69]

    URL: https://layerzeroscan.com/analytics/advanced (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    LayerZero: LayerZero scan analytics. URL: https://layerzeroscan.com/analytics/advanced (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  69. [70]

    URL: https://wormholescan.io/ (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    Wormhole: Wormhole scan. URL: https://wormholescan.io/ (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  70. [71]

    URL: ttps://thegraph.com/explorer/profile/ 0x7e8f317a45d67e27e095436d2e0d47171e7c769f?view=Subgraphs&chain=arbitrum-one(2024) (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    The Graph: Explorer. URL: ttps://thegraph.com/explorer/profile/ 0x7e8f317a45d67e27e095436d2e0d47171e7c769f?view=Subgraphs&chain=arbitrum-one(2024) (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  71. [72]

    URL: https://stargate.finance/ (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    Stargate Finance. URL: https://stargate.finance/ (Last Access: 1st June 2024)

    work page 2024

  72. [73]

    Ravallion, M.: A concave log-like transformation allowing non-positive values. Econ. Lett. 161, 130- 132 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.09.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2017.09.019 2017

  73. [74]

    In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain), pp

    Wang, G., Nixon, M.: InterTrust: Towards an efficient blockchain interoperability architecture with trusted services. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain), pp. 150-159 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/Blockchain53845.2021.00029

    work page doi:10.1109/blockchain53845.2021.00029 2021

  74. [75]

    Barb` ara, F., Schifanella, C.: MP-HTLC: Enabling blockchain interoperability through a multiparty implementation of the hash time-lock contract. Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp. 35(9), e7656 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.7656

    work page doi:10.1002/cpe.7656 2023

  75. [76]

    In: 2023 IEEE/ACM 23rd International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Internet Computing (CCGrid), pp

    Vishwakarma, L., Kumar, A., Das, D.: CrossLedger: A pioneer cross-chain asset transfer protocol. In: 2023 IEEE/ACM 23rd International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Internet Computing (CCGrid), pp. 568–578 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/CCGrid57682.2023.00059

    work page doi:10.1109/ccgrid57682.2023.00059 2023

  76. [77]

    In: 2020 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW), pp

    Westerkamp, M., Eberhardt, J.: zkRelay: Facilitating sidechains using zkSNARK-based chain-relays. In: 2020 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW), pp. 378–386 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/EuroSPW51379.2020.00058

    work page doi:10.1109/eurospw51379.2020.00058 2020

  77. [78]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.02974 (2022)

    Gao, S., Li, G.Q., Fu, H.F., Zhang, H.: A multi-chain synchronization protocol that leverage zero knowledge proof to minimize communication trust base. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.02974 (2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.02974

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.02974 2022

  78. [79]

    In: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Com- puter and Communications Security, pp

    Xie, T., Zhang, J., Cheng, Z., Zhang, F., Zhang, Y., Jia, Y., Boneh, D., Song, D.: zkBridge: Trustless cross-chain bridges made practical. In: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Com- puter and Communications Security, pp. 3003–3017 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3548606.3560652

    work page doi:10.1145/3548606.3560652 2022

  79. [80]

    Computers 11(6), 99 (2022)

    Tsepeleva, R., Korkhov, V.: Building DeFi applications using cross-blockchain interaction on the Wish Swap platform. Computers 11(6), 99 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11060099 26

    work page doi:10.3390/computers11060099 2022