In-depth thinking on solving interoperability and Rollup fragmentation issues

Author: Andy Source: X, @ayyyeandy Translation: Shanolba, Golden Finance

The Rollup cluster optimizes higher security and better interoperability through the standard interoperability solutions embedded in its technology stack. OP Stack, AggLayer, and ZK Sync all have these solutions (not sure if Arbitrum Orbit also has them).

In the Rollup cluster, interoperability will focus on coordinating Block construction or interoperability standards, prioritizing extremely secure, low latency Cross-Chain Interaction messages and asset transfers. If not synchronous, it will also be very close to synchronous. Although the intent-based transmission speed is very fast, the ultimate goal is the finality solution of the single slot in the future.

This is where ZK proof aggregation comes into play in these Rollup clusters, allowing for atomic composability between multiple chains within a given cluster. This provides instant finality for cross-domain transactions, thanks to validity proof, without the need to wait for L1 finality in optimistic design. It is clear that this is the vision we should strive for, although it seems to me that it will take many more years to achieve.

As for the communication between different Rollup clusters, this is a competitive market. Currently, we have Token transfer standards such as NTT, xERC20, ITS, as well as message transport layers for data and packet transfer.

There are many solutions competing in the market today. Market forces will come into play, and ultimately there may be a few winners dominating the market.

However, I believe this progress will be achieved through intent-based systems. Offline market maker systems are ideal for achieving asynchronous interoperability between different execution environments, and because of their latency<200ms, the user experience still feels synchronous. No need to wait for a validator set, finality, or other poorly designed protocols. There are other transmission mechanisms available, but intent-based systems are the fastest, cheapest (and, relative to some more centralized options, quite secure)

In addition, ZK technology will play an important role in the inventory risk of the drop solver, supporting their operations by speeding up the finality of Cross-Chain Interaction.

The community’s call for standards, in my opinion, can be achieved in two ways:

1. Top-down: Organizations like the Ethereum Foundation work with top-tier teams to publicly release their stance on standards, which will be adopted by all major Rollup teams. If you don’t adapt, you will face difficulties in terms of network effects, liquidity, and users. This will address fragmentation issues more quickly, but it goes against the spirit of an open market and permissionless design in the encryption world. Additionally, this may have an impact on many venture capital firms.
2. Bottom-up: Market forces naturally take effect, although it will take longer, but in the end, we will have the best protocol designed by the top team in the field. This is the result of intense competition at the interoperability stack level, requiring teams to firmly position themselves and actively seek cooperation with important clusters. In my opinion, this approach is more likely to be realized.

Although the top-down approach can solve the problem more quickly, I think it’s unlikely to happen.

The battle for interoperability is heating up…