Cross-chain and interoperability - Polkadot, Cosmos, the principles and risks of cross-chain bridges - web3 series Section 21

In the Web3 world, we often hear this sentence:“In the future, there won’t be just one chain, but multiple chains will coexist.”Ethereum, Solana, BNB Chain, Polygon... Each chain has its own ecology and users, but the real problem is that they are often "isolated islands" and it is difficult for assets and data to flow freely.

This leads to a core proposition:Cross-chain and interoperability. As a practitioner who has been paying attention to cross-border markets and Web3 applications for a long time, I have found that whether it is GameFi, DeFi or SocialFi, if you want to achieve large-scale user growth, you cannot avoid this problem.

Today, I want to talk to you about several major cross-chain solutions - Polkadot, Cosmos, cross-chain bridges, their principles, advantages, and potential risks.

Why is cross-chain important?

Let’s look at two data first:

• As of 2024, the TVL (locked volume) of cross-chain bridges once exceeded$100 billion.
• In DeFi, more than30% of users use at least two different public chains.

This illustrates a reality:

• The user's assets are distributed on different chains, but the demand is“Initiate in one place and flow across the entire network”.
• Without an efficient and secure cross-chain solution, user experience will be fragmented and project growth will be limited.

Mainstream cross-chain solutions

Currently, the more representative cross-chain/interoperability solutions can be roughly divided into three categories:

1. Polkadot model: shared security + parachain
2. Cosmos model: cross-chain communication protocol IBC
3. Cross-chain Bridge: Point-to-point asset mapping

Let’s break it down one by one.

Polkadot - Parallel Chain and Shared Security

The core idea of ​​Polkadot is:One relay chain + multiple parallel chains.

• Relay Chain: Responsible for network security and consensus.
• Parachain: Different projects can customize their own blockchain logic, but security is guaranteed by the relay chain.

In this way, each parachain is like an "electrical appliance plugged into a socket" and can enjoy the security of the entire network while interoperating with other parachains.

Advantages

• Share security: Small projects can also rely on Polkadot’s security without having to independently resist attacks.
• Highly customizable: Developers can use the Substrate framework to build personalized chains.

challenge

• Parachain slots are scarce: Requires auction bidding and high cost.
• High complexity: The threshold for development and operation and maintenance is relatively high.

Case

• Acala: Parachain positioned as the center of DeFi.
• Moonbeam: A smart contract parachain compatible with Ethereum.

Cosmos - IBC cross-chain communication protocol

The idea of ​​​​Cosmos is different from that of Polkadot. It focuses on "Blockchain Internet".

• Each chain can operate independently (called a Zone).
• passing between chainsIBC Protocol (Inter-Blockchain Communication)Realize message passing and asset cross-chain.

In other words, Cosmos is more of an “open standard” than a unified security system.

Advantages

• High degree of freedom: Each chain can define its own security and economic model.
• Ecological expansion is fast: Many projects use Cosmos SDK to quickly develop blockchain.

challenge

• Security fragmentation: The security of each chain must be borne by itself, and there is no shared guarantee like Polkadot.
• IBC compatibility dependencies: Not all chains can directly access IBC.

Case

• Osmosis: A decentralized exchange based on Cosmos.
• Cosmos Hub/ATOM: As the core hub of the ecosystem, it is responsible for guiding cross-chains.

Cross-chain bridge - point-to-point asset mapping

Cross-chain bridges are probably the most familiar to users. Its logic is simple:

• The user locks the assets in the contract of chain A;
• Generate equivalent mapping assets (such as WETH, WBTC) on chain B;
• When the user needs to redeem, the mapped assets are destroyed and the original assets are unlocked from chain A.

Advantages

• Fast implementation: Intuitive to users and simple to experience.
• High flexibility: Support asset transfer between most public chains.

risk

• Security issues are prominent: Cross-chain bridges are the hardest hit areas. According to Rekt statistics, cross-chain bridge attacks account for 2021-202260%+ of the entire hacker loss.
• Centralization risk: Some cross-chain bridges rely on a few nodes for hosting, and there are single points of failure.

Case

• Ronin Bridge (2022): Axie Infinity’s cross-chain bridge was hacked, resulting in losses$600 million.
• Wormhole (2022):Stolen by attacker$320 million, the reason is a verification vulnerability.
• Multichain (2023): Hundreds of millions of funds were affected due to team problems and authority management risks.

Comparison table: three cross-chain solutions

How to reduce cross-chain risks?

Based on the practices I observed in cross-border projects, I summarized the following points:

1. Prioritize mature solutions: Don’t use niche cross-chain bridges easily.
2. spread risk: Don’t concentrate large amounts of assets on one bridge.
3. Pay attention to audit and insurance: Choose projects that have undergone top-level audits, or bridges with insurance compensation mechanisms.
4. Multi-signature and decentralized verification: The more dispersed the cross-chain verification nodes are, the higher the security.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Which one is more promising, Polkadot or Cosmos?

A1: The two ideas are different. Polkadot places more emphasis on security and uniformity, while Cosmos is more open and flexible. the future may beCoexistence and complementaritypattern.

Q2: Is cross-chain bridge necessarily unsafe?

A2: No. Although cross-chain bridge risks are high, some mature solutions (such as LayerZero, Axelar) are reducing risks through decentralized verification and stronger security design.

Q3: If I am just an ordinary user, how can I reduce the risk?

A3: Try to use officially recommended cross-chain tools, avoid crossing large amounts at one time, and give priority to head projects.

Q4: Will there be a "unified big chain" in the future, making cross-chain unnecessary?

A4: Unlikely. Different chains have different positioning and technical advantages, so cross-chain interoperability will exist for a long time.

Conclusion

Cross-chain and interoperability are not only technical issues, but also the key to user experience and ecological growth. Whether it’s Polkadot’s parachain model, Cosmos’ IBC protocol, or cross-chain bridges, everyone is working towards one goal:Let the multi-chain world be truly connected.

Of course, cross-chain also means new risks. We must not only see the opportunities it brings, but also have a clear understanding and choose a safer path.

I often say:The future of Web3 must be multi-chain interconnected, and whoever can find a balance between cross-chain security and experience will win the next wave of user dividends.

💼 LIKE.TGThe official overseas marketing tool is now available for free trial!It integrates multiple powerful functions: residential agent IP, fan promotion, number segment screening, customer acquisition system, translator, counter, etc. to efficiently expand overseas markets!

📞 Contact official customer service to obtain trial rights:

• Telegram customer service:@LIKETGLi
• WhatsApp customer service (Enron):Click to contact

🎁 Join【LIKE.TGecological chain】Global resource interconnection community, unlock exclusive benefits, industry tips and real-time support!