Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Khế Ngọt pfp
Khế Ngọt
@khengot
Skip Protocol Introduces EVM Swaps on Skip:Go! Swap any asset from EVM chains to Cosmos chains—and back again—in just one click!
19 replies
0 recast
0 reaction

Soda pfp
Soda
@soda
👍 👍
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Cá Ba Sa pfp
Cá Ba Sa
@cabasa
👍 👍
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Kinh Ba pfp
Kinh Ba
@kinh3
For instance, OFTs offer DVN options that are single validators alongside more robust choices like CCIP or Axelar, which use full validator sets. Similarly, Warp Token offers ISMs like the Multisig ISM which includes validators run by the Hyperlane community and at the same time, there are options like the Aggregation ISM which allows teams to combine security from multiple ISMs.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Tuổi Trẻ Cười pfp
Tuổi Trẻ Cười
@tuoitrecuoi
While some frameworks offer more verification schemes than others, it’s essential to evaluate them based on their security spectrum, which can range from a single validator to comprehensive validator sets.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Emmauel pfp
Emmauel
@vinhtuong
Pre-built schemes are ready-to-use verification mechanisms that token issuers can use for message verification, simplifying deployment. A framework with a wider selection of reliable, pre-built options is generally a positive sign.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Youre pfp
Youre
@dtmyxuyenst
Highlights the flexibility of each framework in customizing its verification mechanism — specifically, whether token issuers can choose from various options or are limited to default settings.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Pravas pfp
Pravas
@khet
When it comes to liveness, relying on multiple verification schemes has both benefits and drawbacks. On the plus side, there’s improved fault tolerance: if one provider experiences downtime, others can ensure continued operations, enhancing system reliability. However, this also increases system complexity. Each additional scheme introduces a potential point of failure, raising the risk of operational disruptions.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Suner pfp
Suner
@bronu
Although custom verification mechanisms offer benefits, it’s the default configurations that remain most widely used. Therefore, focusing on the security of default verification schemes is important. It’s recommended that teams use additional verification schemes on top of defaults to enhance their security setup.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

85cent pfp
85cent
@salonpas
The verification mechanism is at the core of how transfers are validated across chains. It refers to how messages are verified and the type of setup in terms of verification mechanisms each framework provides — whether it’s a single option, modular system with multiple options, or a flexible design compatible with any bridge — allowing token issuers to select the most appropriate solution based on their security requirements.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Du Tho pfp
Du Tho
@dutho
Now that we understand how token frameworks work and their benefits, let's compare the various solutions available in the market for teams seeking to issue their tokens.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Vét Láp pfp
Vét Láp
@vestlab
Circle’s unique feature set for USDC is because of their custom-built bridge, CCTP, a luxury most projects don't have. This is where token frameworks maintained by interoperability protocols come into play. These frameworks provide a solution similar to what CCTP offers for USDC, but for any token. By issuing a token through these frameworks, projects can create a unified market across multiple supported chains, allowing for easy transfers using burn/lock and mint mechanisms.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Ca Non pfp
Ca Non
@canon
No fragmented liquidity – Before, you had different versions of USDC on each chain, leading to inefficiency. Now, USDC is the same across all chains. Market expansion – Deploying USDC across multiple chains gives them access to more users and markets. Capital efficiency – Users can bridge large amounts of USDC without needing liquidity pools or wrapping. Minimal fees – Transfers cost little beyond gas fees. No slippage – Transfers are direct and eliminate the risk of slippage.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Gop pfp
Gop
@guop
Consider Circle’s Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP). By launching CCTP, Circle enabled USDC to be traded seamlessly across supported chains, addressing key issues:
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

iguverse pfp
iguverse
@iguverse.eth
Redundancy – If one chain fails, tokens can still operate on others, providing a safety net. Market expansion – The token can be deployed across chains more quickly, boosting adoption. Moreover, interconnected ecosystems means more room for experimentation across DeFi. Network effects – Collaboration with other projects increases adoption and value.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Vien Tin pfp
Vien Tin
@vientin
Here’s why having a token that is tradable across a unified market spanning multiple chains benefits teams: Liquidity – A single market attracts more traders, increasing liquidity. Brand awareness – Tokens become accessible across various DeFi ecosystems, increasing demand and brand recognition. Simplicity – Token management becomes easier, reducing complexity.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Cây Thúi pfp
Cây Thúi
@chicken
This method is similar to how wrapped tokens operate. Tokens locked on Chain A can then have a wrapped version minted on Chain B. However, now these tokens can also move from Chain B to Chain C using the burn-mint method, without needing to be locked on multiple chains. The original supply remains on Chain A, ensuring that transfers between chains simply involve verifying that the tokens burned match those minted.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Đà Nẵng pfp
Đà Nẵng
@chetruoi
Lock-and-Mint: For Existing Tokens For already existing tokens that were initially deployed on a single chain, the process is slightly different. The entire supply exists on one chain, and when transferring to another chain, part of the supply is locked in a smart contract on the source chain, while an equivalent amount is minted on the destination chain.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Matngot pfp
Matngot
@matngot
If a user transfers 50 tokens from Chain E to Chain A, those tokens are burned on Chain E and minted on Chain A. The updated distribution would be: Chain A: 450 tokens Chain B: 200 tokens Chain C: 200 tokens Chain D: 100 tokens Chain E: 50 tokens
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Lam-May pfp
Lam-May
@lammay
How Token Frameworks Work Token frameworks operate in two main ways, depending on whether you're making an existing token multi-chain or launching a natively multi-chain token from the start.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction