As my entry into the BridgeAcrossWithACX writing contest, I thought I would try to look at Across and try and get a better understanding of how they work as well as if I think it is something that is needed. Hopefully, we can all get a better understanding of their products and how they work. And last but not least if it is something that you might find useful and perhaps use yourself in the future. Or if it is something that you have no need for. While not as interesting, I would argue that is still valuable information to have. Let us dive in.

What is Across?

If we take a look at their whitepaper, you can find it here, we will see that it opens with a bit of a mouthful. But let us break it down and see if we can get a better understanding of what they are saying. Here is the first paragraph in the whitepaper:

Across is an interoperability protocol powered by intents. It is the first cross-chain intents protocol in production today, enabling the fastest and lowest-cost way to transfer value with better security tradeoffs vs. traditional bridge designs.

It says it is an "interoperability protocol powered by intents". And if you are anything like me you are most likely thinking about doing a word search or two. Let us start with "interoperability". It is explained as follows: the ability of computer systems or software to exchange and make use of information. Let us keep going with "protocol", a system of rules that explain the correct conduct and procedures to be followed in formal situations.

That means an "interoperability protocol" is a computer system or software that follows a system of rules allowing it to exchange and make use of information. That sounds much easier to grasp, at least for my head. Let us continue with the "power by intents" part.

"Powered by", this is referring to the interoperability protocol. Most likely powered here is used in reference to making things run or work. Think of a car engine. What is it that makes it run? Gas in the majority of cases. If we apply that same logic here we now get that the interoperability protocol needs something to run or work. That is where the "intents" comes in. This apparently is what is needed for this protocol to work. The "intents" part here refers to the user. Intend is a verb that means to have in mind a purpose or goal. 

Across? A cross? Source: https://pixabay.com/

If we now continue to read a little we will see the "first cross-chain" part. Now we finally have a complete picture. Everyone together now: Across is a set of rules that allows software to exchange and make use of information. It needs the user's goal in order to work. Given the cross-chain part, the specific type of goal the user needs is to move something from one chain "across" to another chain. And for those taking notes, we now also understand why both the name of the protocol is fitting, and most likely why it was chosen as well.

How is the intents compared to the classic bridge?

It is all nice and well to say it is based on user intent, but how does it look in practice? First, let us take a look at a standard crypto bridge. Its purpose is to allow a user to transfer funds between two blockchains. Allowing the user to get the equivalent of the same asset on the second blockchain. As far as I am able to tell these bridges come in two types. Trusted Bridges and Trustless Bridges.

The difference between them is in the Trusted bridge you transfer your asset to a centralized entity, and you have to trust that they will do as they say and give you back your crypto on the other side. On the opposite, the Trustless Bridge instead utilizes smart contracts and algorithms to handle the funds. Skipping the centralized entity part.

Depending on the asset you are looking to transfer you can also expect several trades to take place. This is usually because the bridge utilizes a liquidity pool. And in order for it to be effective it has to be a certain size. This means that minor cryptocurrencies with low liquidity, of their own, even might need an extra swap before you can swap to the asset that is accepted by the pool. And that in turn adds to the cost of course. 

The other version instead of using a liquidity pool is to wrap the cryptocurrency. Its working is a bit different, but it usually involves locking up crypto. As an example, you transfer #SOL from the Solana chain, it gets locked up and you in turn get #WETH, wrapped Ethereum, the same amount on the Ethereum chain. In some cases, the #WETH will get burned.

While the example is a few years old, it still shows the main issue users can face with a traditional bridge transaction. Source: Reddit

What is true for these bridges is that no matter which one you use they tend to take a fair bit of time. In my experience, it can take over an hour if you are unlucky. And as you probably are aware, making transactions on the Ethereum base chain can be quite expensive. And if you're unlucky you will be required to make a few of these before the actual bridging can occur. Meaning the cost can quite easily add up a fair bit. 

Let us now take a look at how Across will use its intents-based approach, and how it differs. As a user, there can be a slight difference in how you experience this. To use an analogy, think of the experience as similar to taking a taxi. You start at point A, the initial blockchain, and you want to transfer your most important asset namely you to point B, the second blockchain or the end goal. In the Across intents taxi, you simply say where you want to go and it drives you there. In the other classic bridge taxi, the driver constantly asks you about every decision. Do you want to take the highway or the backroads? Do you want to take this street or that street? This will most likely result in a much longer and more costly trip.

How does the Across intents protocol work?

Above I talked a bit about how the classic form of bridges works. Here I plan to take a look at what makes the intents protocol different compared to the classic bridges. Let us take a look at a picture from the whitepaper.

A look under the hood of the Across protocol. Source: https://docs.across.to/

While it can look a bit complicated at an initial glance I will try and break the picture down and explain it. Hopefully, it will all be crystal clear after this. The Chain A and B is the two blockchains you want to transfer your assets between. The dashed square is the whole Across interoperability protocol powered by intents part. Or as they say where the magic happens. Or can you only use that line for places where you have sex?

Let us follow the arrow from Chain A to the "Request for Quote" box. The arrow is the users' intent, their goal is to have their assets transferred from Chain A to Chain B. And this intent as we talked about earlier, is the fuel for the Across protocol. The initial push that starts it all. The protocol now looks for a third party that is willing to get assets on Chain A, and in return part ways with assets on Chain B. 

As soon as a willing participant is found, the "Relayer Network box", they then transfer the asset to the destination on Chain B. This is the arrow to Chain B. Now the user will have their assets on Chain B. By all accounts for the user things are now done. But there is still work going on behind the scenes for the protocol. 

This is the "Settlement" box. This is where the users' assets are stored as soon as the willing participant is found. These assets will now get bridged in a traditional way and the party will get their owed assets. Completing the whole transaction.

What makes this different?

The first thing that a user will notice is that unlike with a normal bridge transaction, they will receive their bridged assets almost instantly. This is because the user will not have to wait for the actual bridging to take place. Instead, they will get assets from a willing participant. 

But what is in it for this "willing participant" you most likely are asking yourself. They do not seem to get anything for their troubles. This is however in appearance only. The reality of it is that the asset they transfer to the user on Chain B is treated as a short-term loan. This means they in fact are earning interest on the assets for the duration of the time it takes to complete the transaction. Or to tie it back to the picture above, the settlement box, the bridging of the asset. 

As the speed increases, so does the cost. Usually. Source: https://pixabay.com/

But hold on a minute, I have seen things like this before. They speed something up, but the user has to pay a premium for it, right, right? Normally that is true. But herein lies the other clever part. Due to the user already having received their funds, and the participant earning interest on their outstanding assets. There is no as they say need for speed. 

This means that Across is able to bundle assets together before they bridge them. In turn, saving on the fees. This saving then to a degree is also passed on to the user. This is why the fees are lower compared to traditional bridges. 

What are my thoughts on the project?

As soon as I heard "bridge" I immediately started to think back on all the past hacks that had taken place since I started this blog. One of the reasons for this is simply that they are complex and there are a lot of ways that the hackers, by all accounts, can mess with the bridge. While the Across protocol by no means is hack-proof, I don't think anything is hack-proof by the way so no disrespect to the developers at all, I think that the structure of the protocol should make for a more robust compared to a traditional bridge. 

The main way of attacking the protocol, at least in my mind, is by faking or inserting fake intent into the protocol. This would get the hacker funds but it would not be something that would affect the user, unlike all previous bridge hacks. Sure there is also the chance that the hacker is able to intercept the funds transferred by the user. But I think the main way that would happen is by setting up a fake Across protocol. The easiest way to do that would be to hijack the website or set up a fake site. 

But let us disregard the whole doom and gloom side of crypto. The whole idea of applying an intents approach to bridging cryptocurrency along with the way the protocol works looks very good to me and while they are not the first to apply an intents solution to something they appear to be the first protocol that has taken that approach to a cross-chain solution. And as far as I can tell that is a huge win for us users, both in speed and in cost saving. Potentially there is an earning opportunity as well for people who are willing to lend their assets short term as well. 

As a bonus, the project is not simply content with having a new way to bridge crypto for users. They are looking for developers who want to implement this protocol into dApps and Apps as well. Meaning that the project has a much greater upside compared to a "normal simple bridge". That means way simpler and easier for users, as well as a cost saving. But there is also an earning potential for people with assets who are looking for a way to earn interest through short-term loans. 

But the team behind the Across protocol has their eyes set on much more than making a "simple bridge protocol". They are looking for developers of dApps and Apps that want to implement their Across protocol. And to me, that is the biggest upside of this project. This is because it will allow for much easier and user-friendly dApps and Apps. And in order for crypto to go mainstream that is what we need. But how big the upside will be, I guess we simply have to wait and see.

This sums up my breakdown and analyses of the Across Protocol and its intents functionality as well as my thoughts on the project. I hope that you have found this post informative and useful. And as always, feel free to ask away in the comment section.

If you would like to support me and the content I make, please consider following me, reading my other posts, or why not do both instead. I really appreciate it if you do.

See you on the interwebs!

Picture provided by: fair use, https://pixabay.com/