Arbitrum’s robust technology, deep liquidity, and vibrant community have made it a leading choice for builders.
However, with the expansion of Orbit chains, a gap around the interoperability features of the stack has muted these strengths and led to
We must improve interoperability to fully capitalize on the ecosystem’s strengths.
While improvements are coming, those would only put Arbitrum on par with other ecosystems.
There is a larger opportunity to again lead the industry, position Arbitrum as the first Chain-Abstracted Ecosystem and enable seamless interoperability across Orbit chains. This will unlock:
This proposal advocates the adoption of a comprehensive chain abstraction package that bootstraps and promotes this stack across all Orbit chains. It outlines a phased implementation, beginning with a working stream to define technical solutions, budget asks and then initiate an RFP process that leads into implementation.
This proposal builds on a vision I previously outlined for Arbitrum to become the "Home of Builders". This case focuses on the broader Orbit stack, one pillar necessary to strengthen Arbitrum's position with builders in the onchain ecosystem.
As an ecosystem, we should always ask ourselves: “Why should a builder launch on the Arbitrum/Orbit Stack versus the alternatives?”
A high-level analysis of the major stacks available for launching a new rollup highlights the following:
Arbitrum excels with its tech stack—a battle-tested, customizable, and forward-thinking stack for launching L2s or L3s. Shorter block times, sovereign governance, Stylus, timeboost, and more allow developers features and flexibility not offered by competitors.
Despite Arbitrum’s technological strengths, it faces stiff competition from rivals offering aggressive grants and incentives for partnerships. This challenge is being addressed by the recently approved Strategic Partnership Budget proposal, in which the Foundation’s warchest has been increased specifically to secure more Orbit partnerships.
In the realm of pure incentives, it is notable how other ecosystems have developed programs that involve all the chains of the stack (Optimism, for example, with its RPFG and the Superfest), while the Arbitrum DAO has only focused on Arbitrum One initiatives.
From a purely technological perspective, Orbit Chains currently rely on an optimistic security model, with the well-known 7-day withdrawal period. Over time, these chains are expected to evolve toward a zero-knowledge verification system at the settlement layer.
In their current form, Orbit chains face limitations compared to zk-stack solutions, which provide faster settlement either on the base layer or, more likely, on an intermediate layer (the AggLayer).
To address this short-term limitation, Arbitrum is planning to
For the full explanation, see here: Your Chain, Your Rules, with Arbitrum Orbit | by Offchain Labs (October, 2024) and Your Chain, Your Rules: Offchain Labs’ Technical Roadmap to Fuel Arbitrum Innovation (August, 2024)
Optimism, on the other hand, is working toward enabling seamless interoperability across its Superchain, where all chains will share the same trust configurations and assumptions. This setup allows for trustless, 2-second message passing across all chains in the alliance.
It’s worth noting that Arbitrum Clusters (now Chain Mesh) can form a similar network pattern to Optimism’s Superchain, but with a more bottom-up approach.
Although Optimism’s top-down approach comes with tradeoffs, such as forced centralized upgradability and strict chain requirements, it also provides a unified ecosystem that appeals to builders who align with its vision.
In conversations around L2 chain ecosystems, the Orbit nomenclature is often overlooked and the crypto space generally does not give it the same attention that its competitors receive.
See this example of https://x.com/TheDeFISaint/status/1845381242843169151 between @TheDefiSaint and @AndreCronjeTech
There lack of interoperability among Orbit chains seems to impact the cohesive ecosystem narrative or information as to how this will one day be achieved.
Compare it with the Superchain narrative—a powerful, cohesive ecosystem where every chain supports one another—a rising tide that lifts all boats. In contrast, Orbit chains often feel more isolated, with no clear reason or cohesive narrative beyond the technology and scattered incentives driving builders to Arbitrum.
Notice how the message is positioned around the Superchain, not the OP stack.
In contrast, Orbit chains often feel more isolated, with no clear reason or cohesive narrative beyond the technology and scattered incentives driving builders to Arbitrum.
Back to the question: Why should builders choose Arbitrum?
Launching a new chain requires being as interconnected as possible with the rest of Web3—not just for its own sake, but to enable a seamless inflow of liquidity and users. Builders want to be supported by an ecosystem, knowing they are not fighting this battle alone.
The solutions rely on two pillars:
Culture: A broad discussion needs to happen across members of the Arbitrum ecosystem and Orbit chains. Defining positioning, narrative, and messaging to highlight the benefits of building on the Orbit stack is essential. Ecosystem-wide initiatives should focus not only on Arbitrum One but on the whole ecosystem. While significant work is required in this area, it is out of scope for this proposal.
Interoperability: The focus of this proposal is not only catching up with other stacks but providing added value that becomes a differentiator.
Fortunately, the open market can provide solutions that enable fast and secure flow of value across different chains. However, enabling fast interoperability alone would only put Arbitrum on par with other ecosystems.
Builders need universal accessibility—onboarding users from anywhere so that they can choose Arbitrum or an Orbit chain as their home without having to spread resources thin across different chains.
This will position Arbitrum as the first Chain-Abstracted Ecosystem: an ecosystem ready for mainstream adoption where everyday users can use apps without dealing with the complex interactions that cross-chain (and blockchain) operations normally require, such as bridging, buying a gas token, and spending gas fees.
Check the type of experience that we can enable (ex. By Particle Finance):
To bring this vision to reality, it is necessary to help bootstrap and promote this stack across all Orbit chains, and this is the purpose of this proposal.
Enhanced User Experience: Users enjoy seamless interactions without worrying about underlying specific L2. This experience is becoming the standard, Arbitrum should keep pioneering the space.
Stronger Ecosystem: Interconnected Orbit chains foster collaboration and shared growth. An invisible net that brings all chains closer together, without limiting builders’ freedom.
Competitive Advantage: Differentiates Arbitrum in the market by focusing on user-centric chain abstraction. Provide an out of the box package for new chains and new apps without technical limitations on
To achieve this vision, the following steps are proposed:
The intent-based design allows for the creation of flows where Arbitrum One sits at the center of cross-chain liquidity.
Arbitrum One is already positioned as one of the most secure and trusted L2s. With innovations pushed forward by Offchain Labs (see above), Arbitrum One can be trusted by other chains, meaning that fast movement of tokens will be enabled from Arbitrum to all Orbit chains without additional trust assumptions for Arbitrum One.
This enables greater capital efficiency for the chain abstraction stack.
The major benefit is that Arbitrum One can continue expanding its influence as a liquidity hub, not only within the Orbit chains but also across all L2 ecosystems. Where liquidity is not used for cross-chain solving, it can be deployed in DeFi protocols, and vice versa.
The goal is not to isolate the Orbit chains from other ecosystems but to ensure that Arbitrum is at the center of the multichain economy.
The stack can be divided into several layers, each requiring specific solutions and partnerships
Key Terms
To attract the best projects for each layer, we suggest issuing RFPs with the following requirements:
RFP Template [Example]
There are two types of costs: one for the workstream and one for the full implementation fund. The workstream will define the budget that delivers the highest ROI for the DAO to onboard the best chain abstraction package and submit it for a DAO vote.
Note: This could be similar to the Stylus Sprint.
This proposal doesn’t involve building anything from scratch. It leverages existing “lego” pieces in the market, stacking them on the Orbit infrastructure. I am confident we can ensure quick deployment, capital efficiency, and measurable impacts.
A decisive step towards making Arbitrum the Home of Builders.
I’d like some more background on chain abstraction, orbits and interoperability; where can I learn more?
Special thanks to the Entropy team, Alex Lumley, Joe, members of OCL for their feedback and review.
Arbitrum’s robust technology, deep liquidity, and vibrant community have made it a leading choice for builders.
However, with the expansion of Orbit chains, a gap around the interoperability features of the stack has muted these strengths and led to
We must improve interoperability to fully capitalize on the ecosystem’s strengths.
While improvements are coming, those would only put Arbitrum on par with other ecosystems.
There is a larger opportunity to again lead the industry, position Arbitrum as the first Chain-Abstracted Ecosystem and enable seamless interoperability across Orbit chains. This will unlock:
This proposal advocates the adoption of a comprehensive chain abstraction package that bootstraps and promotes this stack across all Orbit chains. It outlines a phased implementation, beginning with a working stream to define technical solutions, budget asks and then initiate an RFP process that leads into implementation.
This proposal builds on a vision I previously outlined for Arbitrum to become the "Home of Builders". This case focuses on the broader Orbit stack, one pillar necessary to strengthen Arbitrum's position with builders in the onchain ecosystem.
As an ecosystem, we should always ask ourselves: “Why should a builder launch on the Arbitrum/Orbit Stack versus the alternatives?”
A high-level analysis of the major stacks available for launching a new rollup highlights the following:
Arbitrum excels with its tech stack—a battle-tested, customizable, and forward-thinking stack for launching L2s or L3s. Shorter block times, sovereign governance, Stylus, timeboost, and more allow developers features and flexibility not offered by competitors.
Despite Arbitrum’s technological strengths, it faces stiff competition from rivals offering aggressive grants and incentives for partnerships. This challenge is being addressed by the recently approved Strategic Partnership Budget proposal, in which the Foundation’s warchest has been increased specifically to secure more Orbit partnerships.
In the realm of pure incentives, it is notable how other ecosystems have developed programs that involve all the chains of the stack (Optimism, for example, with its RPFG and the Superfest), while the Arbitrum DAO has only focused on Arbitrum One initiatives.
From a purely technological perspective, Orbit Chains currently rely on an optimistic security model, with the well-known 7-day withdrawal period. Over time, these chains are expected to evolve toward a zero-knowledge verification system at the settlement layer.
In their current form, Orbit chains face limitations compared to zk-stack solutions, which provide faster settlement either on the base layer or, more likely, on an intermediate layer (the AggLayer).
To address this short-term limitation, Arbitrum is planning to
For the full explanation, see here: Your Chain, Your Rules, with Arbitrum Orbit | by Offchain Labs (October, 2024) and Your Chain, Your Rules: Offchain Labs’ Technical Roadmap to Fuel Arbitrum Innovation (August, 2024)
Optimism, on the other hand, is working toward enabling seamless interoperability across its Superchain, where all chains will share the same trust configurations and assumptions. This setup allows for trustless, 2-second message passing across all chains in the alliance.
It’s worth noting that Arbitrum Clusters (now Chain Mesh) can form a similar network pattern to Optimism’s Superchain, but with a more bottom-up approach.
Although Optimism’s top-down approach comes with tradeoffs, such as forced centralized upgradability and strict chain requirements, it also provides a unified ecosystem that appeals to builders who align with its vision.
In conversations around L2 chain ecosystems, the Orbit nomenclature is often overlooked and the crypto space generally does not give it the same attention that its competitors receive.
See this example of https://x.com/TheDeFISaint/status/1845381242843169151 between @TheDefiSaint and @AndreCronjeTech
There lack of interoperability among Orbit chains seems to impact the cohesive ecosystem narrative or information as to how this will one day be achieved.
Compare it with the Superchain narrative—a powerful, cohesive ecosystem where every chain supports one another—a rising tide that lifts all boats. In contrast, Orbit chains often feel more isolated, with no clear reason or cohesive narrative beyond the technology and scattered incentives driving builders to Arbitrum.
Notice how the message is positioned around the Superchain, not the OP stack.
In contrast, Orbit chains often feel more isolated, with no clear reason or cohesive narrative beyond the technology and scattered incentives driving builders to Arbitrum.
Back to the question: Why should builders choose Arbitrum?
Launching a new chain requires being as interconnected as possible with the rest of Web3—not just for its own sake, but to enable a seamless inflow of liquidity and users. Builders want to be supported by an ecosystem, knowing they are not fighting this battle alone.
The solutions rely on two pillars:
Culture: A broad discussion needs to happen across members of the Arbitrum ecosystem and Orbit chains. Defining positioning, narrative, and messaging to highlight the benefits of building on the Orbit stack is essential. Ecosystem-wide initiatives should focus not only on Arbitrum One but on the whole ecosystem. While significant work is required in this area, it is out of scope for this proposal.
Interoperability: The focus of this proposal is not only catching up with other stacks but providing added value that becomes a differentiator.
Fortunately, the open market can provide solutions that enable fast and secure flow of value across different chains. However, enabling fast interoperability alone would only put Arbitrum on par with other ecosystems.
Builders need universal accessibility—onboarding users from anywhere so that they can choose Arbitrum or an Orbit chain as their home without having to spread resources thin across different chains.
This will position Arbitrum as the first Chain-Abstracted Ecosystem: an ecosystem ready for mainstream adoption where everyday users can use apps without dealing with the complex interactions that cross-chain (and blockchain) operations normally require, such as bridging, buying a gas token, and spending gas fees.
Check the type of experience that we can enable (ex. By Particle Finance):
To bring this vision to reality, it is necessary to help bootstrap and promote this stack across all Orbit chains, and this is the purpose of this proposal.
Enhanced User Experience: Users enjoy seamless interactions without worrying about underlying specific L2. This experience is becoming the standard, Arbitrum should keep pioneering the space.
Stronger Ecosystem: Interconnected Orbit chains foster collaboration and shared growth. An invisible net that brings all chains closer together, without limiting builders’ freedom.
Competitive Advantage: Differentiates Arbitrum in the market by focusing on user-centric chain abstraction. Provide an out of the box package for new chains and new apps without technical limitations on
To achieve this vision, the following steps are proposed:
The intent-based design allows for the creation of flows where Arbitrum One sits at the center of cross-chain liquidity.
Arbitrum One is already positioned as one of the most secure and trusted L2s. With innovations pushed forward by Offchain Labs (see above), Arbitrum One can be trusted by other chains, meaning that fast movement of tokens will be enabled from Arbitrum to all Orbit chains without additional trust assumptions for Arbitrum One.
This enables greater capital efficiency for the chain abstraction stack.
The major benefit is that Arbitrum One can continue expanding its influence as a liquidity hub, not only within the Orbit chains but also across all L2 ecosystems. Where liquidity is not used for cross-chain solving, it can be deployed in DeFi protocols, and vice versa.
The goal is not to isolate the Orbit chains from other ecosystems but to ensure that Arbitrum is at the center of the multichain economy.
The stack can be divided into several layers, each requiring specific solutions and partnerships
Key Terms
To attract the best projects for each layer, we suggest issuing RFPs with the following requirements:
RFP Template [Example]
There are two types of costs: one for the workstream and one for the full implementation fund. The workstream will define the budget that delivers the highest ROI for the DAO to onboard the best chain abstraction package and submit it for a DAO vote.
Note: This could be similar to the Stylus Sprint.
This proposal doesn’t involve building anything from scratch. It leverages existing “lego” pieces in the market, stacking them on the Orbit infrastructure. I am confident we can ensure quick deployment, capital efficiency, and measurable impacts.
A decisive step towards making Arbitrum the Home of Builders.
I’d like some more background on chain abstraction, orbits and interoperability; where can I learn more?
Special thanks to the Entropy team, Alex Lumley, Joe, members of OCL for their feedback and review.
Hello there! Are there any other sources besides this post where it is possible to follow the development of this proposal? Thanks! :slightly_smiling_face:
Hello there! Are there any other sources besides this post where it is possible to follow the development of this proposal? Thanks! :slightly_smiling_face:
We find this proposal for enhancing Arbitrum's chain abstraction capabilities and improving Orbit chain interoperability to be well-researched and strategically important. The initiative effectively identifies current ecosystem gaps while proposing concrete solutions for strengthening Arbitrum's competitive position.
The proposal's evolution through community feedback and alignment with OCL's Universal Intent Engine program indicates thoughtful iteration and pragmatic execution.
We find this proposal for enhancing Arbitrum's chain abstraction capabilities and improving Orbit chain interoperability to be well-researched and strategically important. The initiative effectively identifies current ecosystem gaps while proposing concrete solutions for strengthening Arbitrum's competitive position.
The proposal's evolution through community feedback and alignment with OCL's Universal Intent Engine program indicates thoughtful iteration and pragmatic execution.
The emphasis on "Speed Over Perfection" is particularly appealing given the increasingly competitive dynamics. The focus on delivering immediate value through existing solutions and partnerships, rather than building everything from scratch, should enable faster market validation and adoption.
What makes this initiative especially promising is its potential to reduce fragmentation in the Orbit ecosystem, improve capital efficiency through better liquidity management, create a more seamless user experience across chains and strengthen Arbitrum's position as an innovation leader.
The recent update about collaboration with OCL's Universal Intent Engine program signals strong institutional alignment, though more details about the March pilot program's scope and participants would be valuable for the community.
We are supportive of this initiative as it represents a pragmatic approach to enhancing Arbitrum's ecosystem while finding it to be strategically crucial at a time when chain abstraction is becoming increasingly central to mainstream adoption of the onchain rails.
The focus on seamless cross-chain interactions directly addresses one of the most significant barriers to both retail and institutional engagement, which is the abnormal complexity of managing multiple chains and bridging processes.
We find this proposal for enhancing Arbitrum's chain abstraction capabilities and improving Orbit chain interoperability to be well-researched and strategically important. The initiative effectively identifies current ecosystem gaps while proposing concrete solutions for strengthening Arbitrum's competitive position.
The proposal's evolution through community feedback and alignment with OCL's Universal Intent Engine program indicates thoughtful iteration and pragmatic execution.
We find this proposal for enhancing Arbitrum's chain abstraction capabilities and improving Orbit chain interoperability to be well-researched and strategically important. The initiative effectively identifies current ecosystem gaps while proposing concrete solutions for strengthening Arbitrum's competitive position.
The proposal's evolution through community feedback and alignment with OCL's Universal Intent Engine program indicates thoughtful iteration and pragmatic execution.
The emphasis on "Speed Over Perfection" is particularly appealing given the increasingly competitive dynamics. The focus on delivering immediate value through existing solutions and partnerships, rather than building everything from scratch, should enable faster market validation and adoption.
What makes this initiative especially promising is its potential to reduce fragmentation in the Orbit ecosystem, improve capital efficiency through better liquidity management, create a more seamless user experience across chains and strengthen Arbitrum's position as an innovation leader.
The recent update about collaboration with OCL's Universal Intent Engine program signals strong institutional alignment, though more details about the March pilot program's scope and participants would be valuable for the community.
We are supportive of this initiative as it represents a pragmatic approach to enhancing Arbitrum's ecosystem while finding it to be strategically crucial at a time when chain abstraction is becoming increasingly central to mainstream adoption of the onchain rails.
The focus on seamless cross-chain interactions directly addresses one of the most significant barriers to both retail and institutional engagement, which is the abnormal complexity of managing multiple chains and bridging processes.
@maxlomu Here is a SimScore report clustering and prioritizing all the comments from this forum.
should help you make highest priority updates to your proposals
@maxlomu Here is a SimScore report clustering and prioritizing all the comments from this forum.
should help you make highest priority updates to your proposals
We find this proposal to be comprehensive and forward-looking in its approach to positioning the ecosystem at the center of chain interoperability. The initiative effectively identifies current ecosystem gaps while proposing very concrete solutions that could meaningfully differentiate Arbitrum from competing L2 ecosystems.
The analysis of Arbitrum's current positioning relative to competitors, particularly Optimism's Superchain narrative, shows a clear understanding of the underlying dynamics and accentuates the need for improved ecosystem cohesion. The proposal is proficient in recognizing that merely catching up to competitors through technical improvements is insufficient - and hence Arbitrum must lead through innovation.
We find this proposal to be comprehensive and forward-looking in its approach to positioning the ecosystem at the center of chain interoperability. The initiative effectively identifies current ecosystem gaps while proposing very concrete solutions that could meaningfully differentiate Arbitrum from competing L2 ecosystems.
The analysis of Arbitrum's current positioning relative to competitors, particularly Optimism's Superchain narrative, shows a clear understanding of the underlying dynamics and accentuates the need for improved ecosystem cohesion. The proposal is proficient in recognizing that merely catching up to competitors through technical improvements is insufficient - and hence Arbitrum must lead through innovation.
The emphasis on Arbitrum One as a trusted liquidity hub is particularly appealing, as it leverages existing ecosystem strengths while creating a clear value proposition for both builders and users. This approach could create a powerful flywheel and activate network effects that benefit both Arbitrum One and Orbit chains.
One aspect that the proposal could benefit from would be further clarification and specification of the proposed architecture.
We are in support of this proposal as it presents a compelling vision for enhancing Arbitrum’s competitive position while delivering meaningful improvements to builder and user experience across the ecosystem.
We find this proposal to be comprehensive and forward-looking in its approach to positioning the ecosystem at the center of chain interoperability. The initiative effectively identifies current ecosystem gaps while proposing very concrete solutions that could meaningfully differentiate Arbitrum from competing L2 ecosystems.
The analysis of Arbitrum's current positioning relative to competitors, particularly Optimism's Superchain narrative, shows a clear understanding of the underlying dynamics and accentuates the need for improved ecosystem cohesion. The proposal is proficient in recognizing that merely catching up to competitors through technical improvements is insufficient - and hence Arbitrum must lead through innovation.
We find this proposal to be comprehensive and forward-looking in its approach to positioning the ecosystem at the center of chain interoperability. The initiative effectively identifies current ecosystem gaps while proposing very concrete solutions that could meaningfully differentiate Arbitrum from competing L2 ecosystems.
The analysis of Arbitrum's current positioning relative to competitors, particularly Optimism's Superchain narrative, shows a clear understanding of the underlying dynamics and accentuates the need for improved ecosystem cohesion. The proposal is proficient in recognizing that merely catching up to competitors through technical improvements is insufficient - and hence Arbitrum must lead through innovation.
The emphasis on Arbitrum One as a trusted liquidity hub is particularly appealing, as it leverages existing ecosystem strengths while creating a clear value proposition for both builders and users. This approach could create a powerful flywheel and activate network effects that benefit both Arbitrum One and Orbit chains.
One aspect that the proposal could benefit from would be further clarification and specification of the proposed architecture.
We are in support of this proposal as it presents a compelling vision for enhancing Arbitrum’s competitive position while delivering meaningful improvements to builder and user experience across the ecosystem.
Thank you for putting this post together. OCL fully agrees that interoperability is a high priority for the Arbitrum ecosystem. Our research, engineering, and product teams have been exploring both shorter term and longer term approaches to enhancing interop. As part of this, we've been reviewing the various interoperability proposals and how we believe that they can work together to provide a level of interoperability in the near-term. We've also been continuing to explore longer-term protocol enhancements like chain meshes. We're excited to see the growing interest in interop across the ecosystem and are eager to collaborate on future work on this topic. We'd be happy to discuss further and hope to share more information about our current thinking soon.
Thank you for putting this post together. OCL fully agrees that interoperability is a high priority for the Arbitrum ecosystem. Our research, engineering, and product teams have been exploring both shorter term and longer term approaches to enhancing interop. As part of this, we've been reviewing the various interoperability proposals and how we believe that they can work together to provide a level of interoperability in the near-term. We've also been continuing to explore longer-term protocol enhancements like chain meshes. We're excited to see the growing interest in interop across the ecosystem and are eager to collaborate on future work on this topic. We'd be happy to discuss further and hope to share more information about our current thinking soon.
Great initiative, Max! Have you chosen the builders yet? If not, I can help you reach out,. I have a few in mind.
gm, quick update on this initiative:
The proposal has evolved into a collaboration with Offchain Labs' Universal Intent Engine program due to strong vision alignment.
OCL is now coordinating a Chain Abstraction pilot with our recommended partners, starting March.
If successful, we'll propose expanding the program under DAO governance to include more chains, teams, and assets.
gm, quick update on this initiative:
The proposal has evolved into a collaboration with Offchain Labs' Universal Intent Engine program due to strong vision alignment.
OCL is now coordinating a Chain Abstraction pilot with our recommended partners, starting March.
If successful, we'll propose expanding the program under DAO governance to include more chains, teams, and assets.
Hope to be able to share more as soon as the pilot goes live!
We believe the proposal is moving in a positive direction, and we support its focus on enhancing chain abstraction to address liquidity fragmentation and improve user experience across the Arbitrum ecosystem.
To make the next steps clearer and actionable, it would be helpful to clarify a few key points:
We believe the proposal is moving in a positive direction, and we support its focus on enhancing chain abstraction to address liquidity fragmentation and improve user experience across the Arbitrum ecosystem.
To make the next steps clearer and actionable, it would be helpful to clarify a few key points:
Additionally, given the ongoing discussion and recent insights shared by the community and updates from you in the GRC, it might be helpful to update the original post to reflect these updates. This will ensure alignment and transparency for everyone following the proposal.
We look forward to seeing more details as this progresses and are happy to engage further to help refine the next steps.
First, I fully agree with this. We need to build a powerful narrative around “Your Chain, Your Rules,” while retaining the ability to connect with the Orbit ecosystem and other networks. That’s a broader topic that will require the involvement of OCL and the Foundation. I’m deeply interested in it but would prefer to keep it separate from this proposal so we can move faster.
I think this proposal offers a long term vision, which can attract and support more developers on Arbitrum.
Just a small concern, while it doesn’t require rebuilding the system from scratch, the cost of implementing and maintaining such a complex cross chain mechanism could still be high. So, I’d love to see more updates on the budget and resources around this, and I suggest developing a clear roadmap for Chain Abstraction implementation so the community/delegate and developers can prepare and collaborate with Arbitrum throughout this process.
gm
Questions: 1. Difficulty of practical realization of interoperability: - The proposal mentions that chain abstraction requires “intent-based design”, are there any concrete solutions or prototypes in terms of technology and implementation? - When optimizing the interoperability of Orbit chains, how to take into account the compatibility with other L2/L3 to avoid the formation of new “island effect”?
Suggestions: 1. In the pilot phase, clear indicators can be set up, such as: - How many interoperability tests between Orbit chains have been completed? - How many new chains are deployed through chain abstraction? - How many new chains will be deployed through chain abstraction? What is the target to increase TVL or transaction volume of chains in the eco-system? 2. It is recommended to prioritize inter-chain UX improvements, such as reducing the number of steps and time costs for users to cross chains on Orbit chains, and launching a unified user interface or SDK.
@maxlomu it was great hearing your overview on today's proposal discussion. With the way you were providing perspectives on liquidity on Orbit chains being the priority, I am interested in if you have done much research into the approach of Cosmos to providing Protocol-owned-liquidity, named Hydro. There are some standout differences in that your approach also leans into intent-based solutions and offering liquidity to solvers, but through some iterations, it could enable the DAO to vote on Orbit chain as well as interoperability protocol bids for liquidity, boosting the experience for users across the Orbital Liquidity Network.
We appreciate your proposal, @maxlomu.
Enhancing interoperability among Orbit chains is crucial to strengthen Arbitrum's "Your Chain, Your Rules" value proposition. The current fragmentation hampers user experience and liquidity efficiency, potentially diminishing Arbitrum's competitive edge in the rollup ecosystem.
We appreciate your proposal, @maxlomu.
Enhancing interoperability among Orbit chains is crucial to strengthen Arbitrum's "Your Chain, Your Rules" value proposition. The current fragmentation hampers user experience and liquidity efficiency, potentially diminishing Arbitrum's competitive edge in the rollup ecosystem.
We support a "Speed over Perfection" approach, implementing a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) to enable rapid deployment and iterative improvements. This agile methodology is preferable to delaying for a comprehensive solution, which may be time-intensive and less responsive to evolving needs.
Could you clarify the following:
Liquidity Allocation: The proposal mentions $100,000 in ETH and $100,000 in USDC. Is this the amount for the upcoming Snapshot vote, or will it be reassessed later?
Snapshot Vote Details: What specifics will the forthcoming Snapshot vote include? Will it cover details such as ownership, accountability, task assignments, total liquidity required, early pilot partners, and committee formation?
We are enthusiastic about this proposal's potential to enhance Arbitrum's technical standing and attract a broader spectrum of developers and users. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of educational initiatives to ensure builders and users understand the capabilities and benefits of chain abstraction.
Thank you for considering our insights. We look forward to the proposal's progression.
Great initiative, Max! Have you chosen the builders yet? If not, I can help you reach out,. I have a few in mind.
gm, quick update on this initiative:
The proposal has evolved into a collaboration with Offchain Labs' Universal Intent Engine program due to strong vision alignment.
OCL is now coordinating a Chain Abstraction pilot with our recommended partners, starting March.
If successful, we'll propose expanding the program under DAO governance to include more chains, teams, and assets.
gm, quick update on this initiative:
The proposal has evolved into a collaboration with Offchain Labs' Universal Intent Engine program due to strong vision alignment.
OCL is now coordinating a Chain Abstraction pilot with our recommended partners, starting March.
If successful, we'll propose expanding the program under DAO governance to include more chains, teams, and assets.
Hope to be able to share more as soon as the pilot goes live!
We believe the proposal is moving in a positive direction, and we support its focus on enhancing chain abstraction to address liquidity fragmentation and improve user experience across the Arbitrum ecosystem.
To make the next steps clearer and actionable, it would be helpful to clarify a few key points:
We believe the proposal is moving in a positive direction, and we support its focus on enhancing chain abstraction to address liquidity fragmentation and improve user experience across the Arbitrum ecosystem.
To make the next steps clearer and actionable, it would be helpful to clarify a few key points:
Additionally, given the ongoing discussion and recent insights shared by the community and updates from you in the GRC, it might be helpful to update the original post to reflect these updates. This will ensure alignment and transparency for everyone following the proposal.
We look forward to seeing more details as this progresses and are happy to engage further to help refine the next steps.
First, I fully agree with this. We need to build a powerful narrative around “Your Chain, Your Rules,” while retaining the ability to connect with the Orbit ecosystem and other networks. That’s a broader topic that will require the involvement of OCL and the Foundation. I’m deeply interested in it but would prefer to keep it separate from this proposal so we can move faster.
I think this proposal offers a long term vision, which can attract and support more developers on Arbitrum.
Just a small concern, while it doesn’t require rebuilding the system from scratch, the cost of implementing and maintaining such a complex cross chain mechanism could still be high. So, I’d love to see more updates on the budget and resources around this, and I suggest developing a clear roadmap for Chain Abstraction implementation so the community/delegate and developers can prepare and collaborate with Arbitrum throughout this process.
gm
Questions: 1. Difficulty of practical realization of interoperability: - The proposal mentions that chain abstraction requires “intent-based design”, are there any concrete solutions or prototypes in terms of technology and implementation? - When optimizing the interoperability of Orbit chains, how to take into account the compatibility with other L2/L3 to avoid the formation of new “island effect”?
Suggestions: 1. In the pilot phase, clear indicators can be set up, such as: - How many interoperability tests between Orbit chains have been completed? - How many new chains are deployed through chain abstraction? - How many new chains will be deployed through chain abstraction? What is the target to increase TVL or transaction volume of chains in the eco-system? 2. It is recommended to prioritize inter-chain UX improvements, such as reducing the number of steps and time costs for users to cross chains on Orbit chains, and launching a unified user interface or SDK.
@maxlomu it was great hearing your overview on today's proposal discussion. With the way you were providing perspectives on liquidity on Orbit chains being the priority, I am interested in if you have done much research into the approach of Cosmos to providing Protocol-owned-liquidity, named Hydro. There are some standout differences in that your approach also leans into intent-based solutions and offering liquidity to solvers, but through some iterations, it could enable the DAO to vote on Orbit chain as well as interoperability protocol bids for liquidity, boosting the experience for users across the Orbital Liquidity Network.
We appreciate your proposal, @maxlomu.
Enhancing interoperability among Orbit chains is crucial to strengthen Arbitrum's "Your Chain, Your Rules" value proposition. The current fragmentation hampers user experience and liquidity efficiency, potentially diminishing Arbitrum's competitive edge in the rollup ecosystem.
We appreciate your proposal, @maxlomu.
Enhancing interoperability among Orbit chains is crucial to strengthen Arbitrum's "Your Chain, Your Rules" value proposition. The current fragmentation hampers user experience and liquidity efficiency, potentially diminishing Arbitrum's competitive edge in the rollup ecosystem.
We support a "Speed over Perfection" approach, implementing a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) to enable rapid deployment and iterative improvements. This agile methodology is preferable to delaying for a comprehensive solution, which may be time-intensive and less responsive to evolving needs.
Could you clarify the following:
Liquidity Allocation: The proposal mentions $100,000 in ETH and $100,000 in USDC. Is this the amount for the upcoming Snapshot vote, or will it be reassessed later?
Snapshot Vote Details: What specifics will the forthcoming Snapshot vote include? Will it cover details such as ownership, accountability, task assignments, total liquidity required, early pilot partners, and committee formation?
We are enthusiastic about this proposal's potential to enhance Arbitrum's technical standing and attract a broader spectrum of developers and users. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of educational initiatives to ensure builders and users understand the capabilities and benefits of chain abstraction.
Thank you for considering our insights. We look forward to the proposal's progression.
gm
Yes, Everclear is one of the 13 projects that I - a DAO delegate trying to add value to the Arbitrum ecosystem - recommended as part of the chain abstraction stack. The stack includes Everclear and projects competing with / providing alternatives to Everclear.
is there a PR budget? This is a a relatively well understood deliverable that could be done by a web3 marketing agency. Contacting 3-4 of them to get quotes would be great. We’re too often doing good stuff but not talking enough about it
OCL & The Foundation are seeing this program as highly strategic so they will run marketing campaigns directly, so no costs for the DAO involved.
We find this proposal for enhancing Arbitrum’s chain abstraction capabilities and improving Orbit chain interoperability to be well-researched and strategically important. The initiative effectively identifies current ecosystem gaps while proposing concrete solutions for strengthening Arbitrum’s competitive position.
Thanks chatGPT, I guess?
OCL & The Foundation are seeing this program as highly strategic so they will run marketing campaigns directly, so no costs for the DAO involved.
We want to that @maxlomu for the thorough proposal and continuous communication throughout this process. This proposal and its discussions have continued for some time and we felt the final edition of the proposal from @Entropy to better Unify the DAO's Mission, Value, and Purpose helps give some insights into the role of the DAO to address significant needs in more technical areas such as this. Having the insights from @Bobbay from Across and the OCL also provide valuable perspectives on how these solutions are progressing internally and throughout the space. We feel these comments below highlight where the DAO may be able to have the greatest impact.
We want to that @maxlomu for the thorough proposal and continuous communication throughout this process. This proposal and its discussions have continued for some time and we felt the final edition of the proposal from @Entropy to better Unify the DAO's Mission, Value, and Purpose helps give some insights into the role of the DAO to address significant needs in more technical areas such as this. Having the insights from @Bobbay from Across and the OCL also provide valuable perspectives on how these solutions are progressing internally and throughout the space. We feel these comments below highlight where the DAO may be able to have the greatest impact.
Superbridgg or bridgg show you most OP Stack chains and let you bridge between them directly via Across,CCTP or canonical routes. This visibility makes OP chains more attractive to builders, as their projects gain immediate recognition within the ecosystem.
From the volume flowing through these to Across we can confirm a fair amount transaction volume flowing through these frontend interfaces. Currently, Arbitrum lacks a comparable solution.
While the DAO does not set the agenda for development of Arbitrum, our influence, network, and ability to incentivize such initiatives should be leaned into. There is abundant evidence that an initiative of this sort is needed and the DAO is capable of supplying the capital and facilitating coordination between ARDC, OCL, and the Foundation. As OCL analyzes the various options and the potential for chain meshes, these near-term solutions, outlined by @maxlomu below can be highlighted for further discussion:
Of these, we believe an initiative to bring protocols and liquidity to the Arbitrum ecosystem will improve competitiveness of the Orbital Liquidity Network as the DAO works through the structure for potential loans to solvers. OCL's response only makes us feel more as though the DAO needs to be proactive here and we are looking forward to working with ecosystems projects and our fellow delegates to move this foreward.
Hey @maxlomu does this include Everclear? and if so, is Everclear one of the partners or the entity that recommended the several partners? or both?
Thank you for the detailed answers and explanations. I think this initiative will give a large number of new users with no experience in crypto the opportunity to come to Arbitrum and stay there.
What worries me most is the security of the implementation of the abstraction layer above Arbitrum. At the moment, we encounter errors at one level, and now they can be at two or the problem can be in the combination of levels. It is very important that this is thought out to avoid users fleeing us.
gm everyone, thank you all for your replies and support.
As we’ve missed the window to move this forward before the holiday break, we’re using this extra time to speak directly with builders, chains, and align with Offchain Labs and the Foundation. I'll also take the opportunity to review other programs like Hydro that @AranaDigital suggested.
gm everyone, thank you all for your replies and support.
As we’ve missed the window to move this forward before the holiday break, we’re using this extra time to speak directly with builders, chains, and align with Offchain Labs and the Foundation. I'll also take the opportunity to review other programs like Hydro that @AranaDigital suggested.
Meanwhile here's a public update on what’s been happening behind the scenes and recap the latest governance call.
I think this proposal is solid on the technical side, but if Orbit wants to attract developers like Superchain has, it’s going to take more than just the stack. Superchain has a clear narrative and strong identity that attracts people who want an aligned community. Without something similar, Orbit chains might keep feeling a bit fragmented.
First, I fully agree with this. We need to build a powerful narrative around “Your Chain, Your Rules,” while retaining the ability to connect with the Orbit ecosystem and other networks. That’s a broader topic that will require the involvement of OCL and the Foundation. I’m deeply interested in it but would prefer to keep it separate from this proposal so we can move faster.
After speaking with builders, delegates, and chain abstraction protocols, we’re consolidating the initial vision into an MVP that can deliver immediate value to builders and the DAO without adding unnecessary complexity or delays.
Findings so far:
This is a great start. Our goals should be:
We will deploy Nomial pools on selected Orbit chains, then allow intent-based bridges and their solvers to borrow liquidity so they can support the inflow of tokens onto those chains, and directly into their apps.
Expect an update before the end of the year/early next year, with the goal to go live on Snapshot as soon as possible. Very excited about having this live soon :rocket:
@cattin from the Entropy team is helping me project manage this. Feel free to reach out with any questions!
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.
In their current form, Orbit chains face limitations compared to zk-stack solutions, which provide faster settlement either on the base layer or, more likely, on an intermediate layer (the AggLayer).
To address this short-term limitation, Arbitrum is planning to
It’s very clear that the trove of Orbit Chains has in the present undermined the cohesive system of Arbitrum, be it the liquidity inefficiencies and reliance of optimistic security. It’s also very valid Chain Abstraction will illuminate the everyday interactions for mainstream user bases. If implementations like Fast Withdrawal and Layer Leap are installed, it greatly improves chain interoperability on-par with new and emerging solutions on similar chain abstraction tech stacks.
For this strategy to capture momentum, feedback and assessments would need to be considered from existing orbit chains, many of which can attest to the issues made, difficulties in scaling their products: due to 7 day delays with withdrawals, lack of unified liquidity, and limitations in cross-chain integration.
I anticipate having these considerations and technical specifications laid out, including the transition with ZK-stack solutions, can create infinite movement within the revolving door for settlement.
As many have crucially outlined the committee’s responsibility is crucial for this viability, to extend this, they should have adequate security provisions, be aligned with Arbitrum (can be core builders), regularly understand their approach according to respective Orbit Chains (Sanko Chain as a Gamefi focused, Winr as a prediction market focused environment, etc.).
Furthermore, as advised by @karpatkey, this proposal’s design, implementation, and initiation relies on Offchain Labs and the Foundation to incorporate this in its further vision.
That being said, we very much agree with the proposal’s initiative and support it as a preparatory solution towards navigating chain-abstraction for future users.
I'd like to share the findings of many conversations at DevCon.
Market makers have a cost of capital which can be used to support chain abstraction. Capital for Orbit - Orbit or for Orbit - Arbitrum One is a higher cost than for Superchain - Superchain. Basically, with shared governance, they consider it to have one risk variable where as with two unique chain governance, they consider it 2 risk factors.
I'd like to share the findings of many conversations at DevCon.
Market makers have a cost of capital which can be used to support chain abstraction. Capital for Orbit - Orbit or for Orbit - Arbitrum One is a higher cost than for Superchain - Superchain. Basically, with shared governance, they consider it to have one risk variable where as with two unique chain governance, they consider it 2 risk factors.
Because of this higher cost of capital for market makers to ensure fast solving transactions, they are going to prioritize our network transactions last.
This project is needed to not only ensure we aren't last to gain the features, but to acquire them at all. The DAO can supply this capital at competitive rates ensuring prioritization of the Orbital Liquidity Network.
NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO DO THIS. LFG
We think this is a good initiative by @MaxLomu, as better interoperability between Orbit Chains and Arbitrum itself could potentially make it much easier for Arbitrum users to explore the various Orbit Chains available.
As Max has rightly pointed out, the research and development of the plans surrounding this proposal has to be aligned with ARDC, Offchain Labs and Arbitrum Foundation in light of the Ethereum-wide interop plans that may be running in parallel with Ethereum Foundation.
We think this is a good initiative by @MaxLomu, as better interoperability between Orbit Chains and Arbitrum itself could potentially make it much easier for Arbitrum users to explore the various Orbit Chains available.
As Max has rightly pointed out, the research and development of the plans surrounding this proposal has to be aligned with ARDC, Offchain Labs and Arbitrum Foundation in light of the Ethereum-wide interop plans that may be running in parallel with Ethereum Foundation.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrum-as-the-home-of-builders-embracing-chain-abstraction/27250 It would be prudent for us to consider various aspects, not only the impact of interoperability within Arbitrum and its Orbit Chains but also how interoperability with the broader Ethereum ecosystem would align and flow.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrum-as-the-home-of-builders-embracing-chain-abstraction/27250/11 We also agree with @Bobby's assessment that an interim solution may be required during the potentially longer implementation process of Chain Abstraction solutions. Depending on the development timelines needed for a Chain Abstraction strategy, an interim solution should also be scoped out and explored in parallel if a need is determined.
One key thing we would like to see from the committee exploring chain abstraction is feedback on the needs of protocols and orbit chains within our ecosystem. It is, after all, prudent for us to focus on things that meet the needs of projects building on Arbitrum.
Castle is in favor of exploring this topic further, and we will vote in support of this proposal.
This feels like a really solid initiative. I'm thinking we can support on the App layer by aggregating insights about builders decision-making models so the comms/packaging of these solutions is as sharp as possible
Thanks everyone for the extensive feedback. As we continue investigating the fastest and most efficient ways to implement this, I'll try to clarify some points and how the mental model is evolving.
Up to this point, all major technical upgrades have come from the core team. As this would be a main change in how Arbitrum works, this initiative needs to be in close collaboration with Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation. A disjointed effort would lead to suboptimal results, other than waste of resources.
Thanks for the proposal!
I have a few questions:
led by [names], with participation from the Arbitrum Research and Development Program, Offchain Labs, and the Arbitrum Foundation.
After reading and discussing this proposal, we believe Chain Abstraction can be a strong play that Arbitrum DAO should adopt to increase its presence in the ecosystem with a strong vision for Arbitrum’s future. However, a few questions came up during our review:
First, we are curious about how the proposal plans to handle the integration of Orbit Chains, which involves complex and sensitive technology. Specifically, what safety measures and testing protocols will be in place to ensure stability and security during implementation?
After reading and discussing this proposal, we believe Chain Abstraction can be a strong play that Arbitrum DAO should adopt to increase its presence in the ecosystem with a strong vision for Arbitrum’s future. However, a few questions came up during our review:
First, we are curious about how the proposal plans to handle the integration of Orbit Chains, which involves complex and sensitive technology. Specifically, what safety measures and testing protocols will be in place to ensure stability and security during implementation?
Additionally, while we appreciate the comparison with Stylus Sprint, we feel that having a developed budget is crucial for our voting decision. Understanding the estimated costs, including any administrative expenses, would help us better assess the proposal's financial scope. It would also be nice to know the estimated timeline for implementing these changes if approved.
While we recognize that the proposal aims to simplify the user experience, we are concerned that introducing these interoperability layers might add complexity for developers. We are not devs, so some confusion might arise on this last point.
gm
Yes, Everclear is one of the 13 projects that I - a DAO delegate trying to add value to the Arbitrum ecosystem - recommended as part of the chain abstraction stack. The stack includes Everclear and projects competing with / providing alternatives to Everclear.
is there a PR budget? This is a a relatively well understood deliverable that could be done by a web3 marketing agency. Contacting 3-4 of them to get quotes would be great. We’re too often doing good stuff but not talking enough about it
OCL & The Foundation are seeing this program as highly strategic so they will run marketing campaigns directly, so no costs for the DAO involved.
We find this proposal for enhancing Arbitrum’s chain abstraction capabilities and improving Orbit chain interoperability to be well-researched and strategically important. The initiative effectively identifies current ecosystem gaps while proposing concrete solutions for strengthening Arbitrum’s competitive position.
Thanks chatGPT, I guess?
OCL & The Foundation are seeing this program as highly strategic so they will run marketing campaigns directly, so no costs for the DAO involved.
We want to that @maxlomu for the thorough proposal and continuous communication throughout this process. This proposal and its discussions have continued for some time and we felt the final edition of the proposal from @Entropy to better Unify the DAO's Mission, Value, and Purpose helps give some insights into the role of the DAO to address significant needs in more technical areas such as this. Having the insights from @Bobbay from Across and the OCL also provide valuable perspectives on how these solutions are progressing internally and throughout the space. We feel these comments below highlight where the DAO may be able to have the greatest impact.
We want to that @maxlomu for the thorough proposal and continuous communication throughout this process. This proposal and its discussions have continued for some time and we felt the final edition of the proposal from @Entropy to better Unify the DAO's Mission, Value, and Purpose helps give some insights into the role of the DAO to address significant needs in more technical areas such as this. Having the insights from @Bobbay from Across and the OCL also provide valuable perspectives on how these solutions are progressing internally and throughout the space. We feel these comments below highlight where the DAO may be able to have the greatest impact.
Superbridgg or bridgg show you most OP Stack chains and let you bridge between them directly via Across,CCTP or canonical routes. This visibility makes OP chains more attractive to builders, as their projects gain immediate recognition within the ecosystem.
From the volume flowing through these to Across we can confirm a fair amount transaction volume flowing through these frontend interfaces. Currently, Arbitrum lacks a comparable solution.
While the DAO does not set the agenda for development of Arbitrum, our influence, network, and ability to incentivize such initiatives should be leaned into. There is abundant evidence that an initiative of this sort is needed and the DAO is capable of supplying the capital and facilitating coordination between ARDC, OCL, and the Foundation. As OCL analyzes the various options and the potential for chain meshes, these near-term solutions, outlined by @maxlomu below can be highlighted for further discussion:
Of these, we believe an initiative to bring protocols and liquidity to the Arbitrum ecosystem will improve competitiveness of the Orbital Liquidity Network as the DAO works through the structure for potential loans to solvers. OCL's response only makes us feel more as though the DAO needs to be proactive here and we are looking forward to working with ecosystems projects and our fellow delegates to move this foreward.
Hey @maxlomu does this include Everclear? and if so, is Everclear one of the partners or the entity that recommended the several partners? or both?
Thank you for the detailed answers and explanations. I think this initiative will give a large number of new users with no experience in crypto the opportunity to come to Arbitrum and stay there.
What worries me most is the security of the implementation of the abstraction layer above Arbitrum. At the moment, we encounter errors at one level, and now they can be at two or the problem can be in the combination of levels. It is very important that this is thought out to avoid users fleeing us.
gm everyone, thank you all for your replies and support.
As we’ve missed the window to move this forward before the holiday break, we’re using this extra time to speak directly with builders, chains, and align with Offchain Labs and the Foundation. I'll also take the opportunity to review other programs like Hydro that @AranaDigital suggested.
gm everyone, thank you all for your replies and support.
As we’ve missed the window to move this forward before the holiday break, we’re using this extra time to speak directly with builders, chains, and align with Offchain Labs and the Foundation. I'll also take the opportunity to review other programs like Hydro that @AranaDigital suggested.
Meanwhile here's a public update on what’s been happening behind the scenes and recap the latest governance call.
I think this proposal is solid on the technical side, but if Orbit wants to attract developers like Superchain has, it’s going to take more than just the stack. Superchain has a clear narrative and strong identity that attracts people who want an aligned community. Without something similar, Orbit chains might keep feeling a bit fragmented.
First, I fully agree with this. We need to build a powerful narrative around “Your Chain, Your Rules,” while retaining the ability to connect with the Orbit ecosystem and other networks. That’s a broader topic that will require the involvement of OCL and the Foundation. I’m deeply interested in it but would prefer to keep it separate from this proposal so we can move faster.
After speaking with builders, delegates, and chain abstraction protocols, we’re consolidating the initial vision into an MVP that can deliver immediate value to builders and the DAO without adding unnecessary complexity or delays.
Findings so far:
This is a great start. Our goals should be:
We will deploy Nomial pools on selected Orbit chains, then allow intent-based bridges and their solvers to borrow liquidity so they can support the inflow of tokens onto those chains, and directly into their apps.
Expect an update before the end of the year/early next year, with the goal to go live on Snapshot as soon as possible. Very excited about having this live soon :rocket:
@cattin from the Entropy team is helping me project manage this. Feel free to reach out with any questions!
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.
In their current form, Orbit chains face limitations compared to zk-stack solutions, which provide faster settlement either on the base layer or, more likely, on an intermediate layer (the AggLayer).
To address this short-term limitation, Arbitrum is planning to
It’s very clear that the trove of Orbit Chains has in the present undermined the cohesive system of Arbitrum, be it the liquidity inefficiencies and reliance of optimistic security. It’s also very valid Chain Abstraction will illuminate the everyday interactions for mainstream user bases. If implementations like Fast Withdrawal and Layer Leap are installed, it greatly improves chain interoperability on-par with new and emerging solutions on similar chain abstraction tech stacks.
For this strategy to capture momentum, feedback and assessments would need to be considered from existing orbit chains, many of which can attest to the issues made, difficulties in scaling their products: due to 7 day delays with withdrawals, lack of unified liquidity, and limitations in cross-chain integration.
I anticipate having these considerations and technical specifications laid out, including the transition with ZK-stack solutions, can create infinite movement within the revolving door for settlement.
As many have crucially outlined the committee’s responsibility is crucial for this viability, to extend this, they should have adequate security provisions, be aligned with Arbitrum (can be core builders), regularly understand their approach according to respective Orbit Chains (Sanko Chain as a Gamefi focused, Winr as a prediction market focused environment, etc.).
Furthermore, as advised by @karpatkey, this proposal’s design, implementation, and initiation relies on Offchain Labs and the Foundation to incorporate this in its further vision.
That being said, we very much agree with the proposal’s initiative and support it as a preparatory solution towards navigating chain-abstraction for future users.
I'd like to share the findings of many conversations at DevCon.
Market makers have a cost of capital which can be used to support chain abstraction. Capital for Orbit - Orbit or for Orbit - Arbitrum One is a higher cost than for Superchain - Superchain. Basically, with shared governance, they consider it to have one risk variable where as with two unique chain governance, they consider it 2 risk factors.
I'd like to share the findings of many conversations at DevCon.
Market makers have a cost of capital which can be used to support chain abstraction. Capital for Orbit - Orbit or for Orbit - Arbitrum One is a higher cost than for Superchain - Superchain. Basically, with shared governance, they consider it to have one risk variable where as with two unique chain governance, they consider it 2 risk factors.
Because of this higher cost of capital for market makers to ensure fast solving transactions, they are going to prioritize our network transactions last.
This project is needed to not only ensure we aren't last to gain the features, but to acquire them at all. The DAO can supply this capital at competitive rates ensuring prioritization of the Orbital Liquidity Network.
NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO DO THIS. LFG
We think this is a good initiative by @MaxLomu, as better interoperability between Orbit Chains and Arbitrum itself could potentially make it much easier for Arbitrum users to explore the various Orbit Chains available.
As Max has rightly pointed out, the research and development of the plans surrounding this proposal has to be aligned with ARDC, Offchain Labs and Arbitrum Foundation in light of the Ethereum-wide interop plans that may be running in parallel with Ethereum Foundation.
We think this is a good initiative by @MaxLomu, as better interoperability between Orbit Chains and Arbitrum itself could potentially make it much easier for Arbitrum users to explore the various Orbit Chains available.
As Max has rightly pointed out, the research and development of the plans surrounding this proposal has to be aligned with ARDC, Offchain Labs and Arbitrum Foundation in light of the Ethereum-wide interop plans that may be running in parallel with Ethereum Foundation.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrum-as-the-home-of-builders-embracing-chain-abstraction/27250 It would be prudent for us to consider various aspects, not only the impact of interoperability within Arbitrum and its Orbit Chains but also how interoperability with the broader Ethereum ecosystem would align and flow.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrum-as-the-home-of-builders-embracing-chain-abstraction/27250/11 We also agree with @Bobby's assessment that an interim solution may be required during the potentially longer implementation process of Chain Abstraction solutions. Depending on the development timelines needed for a Chain Abstraction strategy, an interim solution should also be scoped out and explored in parallel if a need is determined.
One key thing we would like to see from the committee exploring chain abstraction is feedback on the needs of protocols and orbit chains within our ecosystem. It is, after all, prudent for us to focus on things that meet the needs of projects building on Arbitrum.
Castle is in favor of exploring this topic further, and we will vote in support of this proposal.
This feels like a really solid initiative. I'm thinking we can support on the App layer by aggregating insights about builders decision-making models so the comms/packaging of these solutions is as sharp as possible
Thanks everyone for the extensive feedback. As we continue investigating the fastest and most efficient ways to implement this, I'll try to clarify some points and how the mental model is evolving.
Up to this point, all major technical upgrades have come from the core team. As this would be a main change in how Arbitrum works, this initiative needs to be in close collaboration with Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation. A disjointed effort would lead to suboptimal results, other than waste of resources.
Thanks for the proposal!
I have a few questions:
led by [names], with participation from the Arbitrum Research and Development Program, Offchain Labs, and the Arbitrum Foundation.
After reading and discussing this proposal, we believe Chain Abstraction can be a strong play that Arbitrum DAO should adopt to increase its presence in the ecosystem with a strong vision for Arbitrum’s future. However, a few questions came up during our review:
First, we are curious about how the proposal plans to handle the integration of Orbit Chains, which involves complex and sensitive technology. Specifically, what safety measures and testing protocols will be in place to ensure stability and security during implementation?
After reading and discussing this proposal, we believe Chain Abstraction can be a strong play that Arbitrum DAO should adopt to increase its presence in the ecosystem with a strong vision for Arbitrum’s future. However, a few questions came up during our review:
First, we are curious about how the proposal plans to handle the integration of Orbit Chains, which involves complex and sensitive technology. Specifically, what safety measures and testing protocols will be in place to ensure stability and security during implementation?
Additionally, while we appreciate the comparison with Stylus Sprint, we feel that having a developed budget is crucial for our voting decision. Understanding the estimated costs, including any administrative expenses, would help us better assess the proposal's financial scope. It would also be nice to know the estimated timeline for implementing these changes if approved.
While we recognize that the proposal aims to simplify the user experience, we are concerned that introducing these interoperability layers might add complexity for developers. We are not devs, so some confusion might arise on this last point.
Thanks everyone for the extensive feedback. As we continue investigating the fastest and most efficient ways to implement this, I'll try to clarify some points and how the mental model is evolving.
Up to this point, all major technical upgrades have come from the core team. As this would be a main change in how Arbitrum works, this initiative needs to be in close collaboration with Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation. A disjointed effort would lead to suboptimal results, other than waste of resources.
All of this Chain Abstraction stack sits on top of Arbitrum - meaning that there is no strict need for OCL to do anything. All solutions are independent providers, some of them are already deployed on Arbitrum One in a permissionless way. OCL wants to and will get involved in any decision making, in particular we will follow their guidelines if they identify specific EIP/standards that should be embraced by the selected solutions.
Then what is the purpose of this initiative? Enable builders to deliver the best experience on Arbitrum with the right tools
Example of outputs:
We received 2 recurring questions so far:
We are conducting interviews with major apps and chains to gather a better understanding.
As of now I believe there are 3 requirements:
There are different forms this could be shaped.
Building a new Orbit-focused bridge UI may not be the optimal approach.
In the short term, the objective is to have the shortest path to MVP defined and implemented:
This must be concluded in the next few weeks - we want to test it fast. I want to reduce bureaucracy to the minimum - Snapshot timeline will not be met today.
In the long term, we should focus on a comprehensive package that is
Thanks for the proposal!
I have a few questions:
led by [names], with participation from the Arbitrum Research and Development Program, Offchain Labs, and the Arbitrum Foundation.
Do we have a full commitment from the other entities? I assume that we are talking about the ARDC here. Does the current timeline fit into the ARDC v2 timeline?
What exactly would go up to a vote by the 31st? What is the budget for it? I assume that the second item is Open application, correct? What is the profile we are looking for?
Thanks in advance!
Thank you, @maxlomu, for this RFC. I learned about it during last week's Governance call. As a new delegate, it helped me better understand the strategy of Arbitrum and its key technical strengths.
In my opinion, positioning Arbitrum as the chain abstraction ecosystem should be a core goal to increase activity and TVL. This is a key KPI that can be monitored to measure the efficiency of such an initiative. I just noticed that Base has now surpassed Arbitrum in TVL; the competition is indeed fierce. In my view, an ecosystem that enables account abstraction, shared liquidity, and maximises network effects will succeed in attracting builders, applications, users and TVL.
Thank you, @maxlomu, for this RFC. I learned about it during last week's Governance call. As a new delegate, it helped me better understand the strategy of Arbitrum and its key technical strengths.
In my opinion, positioning Arbitrum as the chain abstraction ecosystem should be a core goal to increase activity and TVL. This is a key KPI that can be monitored to measure the efficiency of such an initiative. I just noticed that Base has now surpassed Arbitrum in TVL; the competition is indeed fierce. In my view, an ecosystem that enables account abstraction, shared liquidity, and maximises network effects will succeed in attracting builders, applications, users and TVL.
Additionally, there is a significant branding aspect in this competitive space. The term 'Superchain' may have initially seemed a bit 'pushy,' but it has apparently gained traction, and now everyone is incorporating it into their communications (e.g., UniChain, as mentioned).
In my opinion, this initiative could be an opportunity for Arbitrum to promote the 'chain abstraction narrative' with some distinctive branding and recognizable keywords. The current terminology of 'Arbitrum and Orbit Chains' might suggest more fragmentation than an ecosystem unified by chain abstraction, especially compared to the competition from a unified 'Superchain.’ However, I understand that branding is a complex topic and I don't have the full history about Arbirum ones, so might be a bit off-topic there. ( Also narrative, branding seems not to be the only aspects to attract big players https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2024/10/29/optimism-foundation-agreed-to-give-kraken-425m-of-op-tokens-in-layer-2-deal/ … )
I support this initiative, provided that the budget allocated aligns with industry standards and reputable service providers are onboarded during the RFP phase. Good to see the support of OCL and I am eager to witness how this progresses with a live working group !
I think this proposal is solid on the technical side, but if Orbit wants to attract developers like Superchain has, it’s going to take more than just the stack. Superchain has a clear narrative and strong identity that attracts people who want an aligned community. Without something similar, Orbit chains might keep feeling a bit fragmented.
I have seen other initiatives, like the Orbit Ecosystem Fund and the Orbit Stimulus Pilot. These programs help to boost growth and are great as a foundation, but to keep up the momentum long-term, it’s probably going to take more than just funding.
I think this proposal is solid on the technical side, but if Orbit wants to attract developers like Superchain has, it’s going to take more than just the stack. Superchain has a clear narrative and strong identity that attracts people who want an aligned community. Without something similar, Orbit chains might keep feeling a bit fragmented.
I have seen other initiatives, like the Orbit Ecosystem Fund and the Orbit Stimulus Pilot. These programs help to boost growth and are great as a foundation, but to keep up the momentum long-term, it’s probably going to take more than just funding.
Also, the intent-based architecture is powerful, but it’s going to need education and some incentives for people to really get on board. We know that new technologies like cross-chain liquidity solutions tend to struggle at the start without good support strategies. Orbit would benefit a lot from offering educational resources and grants to help developers understand and use the new stack.
About incentives, Superchain has stayed in the spotlight because they’re consistent with their support for developers (RetroPGF, https://optimism.io/build). Orbit already kicked off with funds and initiatives like the Stimulus Pilot, but I agree that a structured and steady approach would help secure that long-term growth.
Finally, making Orbit attractive to developers isn’t just about incentives. Improving the onboarding process with things like an easy deployment template and tutorials could make a huge difference. For devs who value decentralization, Orbit has an opportunity to emphasize interoperability without enforcing centralized chain configurations, setting it apart from Superchain’s centralized approach. Overall, I think that a well-defined narrative and clear resources for developers could make Orbit the place for those looking for flexibility and support.
I'm glad to see a proposal like this making its way to the DAO. Between this post and the call, it's clear there is a lot of thought going into this - which is great because I think fragmentation is huge area of concern to address as Ethereum grows more L2 dependent. So I don't have much to really add to this other then I look forward to this going forward, as this is something to address sooner then later.
I will echo one question brought up by @karpatkey (see below). I saw a reply by @offchainlabs below, however I wasn't 100% sure if that was the official account (I saw it was created like 2 months ago). Regardless, it seems even if that response is the official team then I don't see indication Offchain labs has made a final decision on how they want to handle this.
I'm glad to see a proposal like this making its way to the DAO. Between this post and the call, it's clear there is a lot of thought going into this - which is great because I think fragmentation is huge area of concern to address as Ethereum grows more L2 dependent. So I don't have much to really add to this other then I look forward to this going forward, as this is something to address sooner then later.
I will echo one question brought up by @karpatkey (see below). I saw a reply by @offchainlabs below, however I wasn't 100% sure if that was the official account (I saw it was created like 2 months ago). Regardless, it seems even if that response is the official team then I don't see indication Offchain labs has made a final decision on how they want to handle this.
I don't think delaying the timeline here is a good idea, but I also think were in a situation where we can spin up all this work only to find out Offchain labs is wanting to handle this in house. Is there any indication a decision on this matter would be determined prior to December?
Are Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation onboard with the DAO leading this initiative? and, are they open for collaboration with whoever the DAO selects?
Up to this point, all major technical upgrades have come from the core team. As this would be a main change in how Arbitrum works, this initiative needs to be in close collaboration with Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation. A disjointed effort would lead to suboptimal results, other than waste of resources.
We believe interoperability is a key point of discussion, thank you @maxlomu for bringing it up.
As of today, the user experience when interacting with DeFi is disconnected, with both users and liquidity fragmented across a variety of different chains. This has proven a key issue with the raise of L2s and alternative L1s. Therefore, it feels essential to discuss this topic in the context of Arbitrum Orbit chains to hopefully avoid replicating the same issues of fragmented user experience and liquidity inefficiency.
We believe interoperability is a key point of discussion, thank you @maxlomu for bringing it up.
As of today, the user experience when interacting with DeFi is disconnected, with both users and liquidity fragmented across a variety of different chains. This has proven a key issue with the raise of L2s and alternative L1s. Therefore, it feels essential to discuss this topic in the context of Arbitrum Orbit chains to hopefully avoid replicating the same issues of fragmented user experience and liquidity inefficiency.
There lack of interoperability among Orbit chains seems to impact the cohesive ecosystem narrative or information as to how this will one day be achieved.
As part of its recent unveiling of Unichain, Uniswap tackled a similar problem as the one discussed here. While they obtain native interoperability within the Superchain, Uniswap still needs to deal with users and liquidity spread across deployments on various chains.
Similarly, Arbitrum Orbit chains needs to deal with users and liquidity spread across its various Orbit chains.
This long premise to say we agree on the motivation and understand the rationale of this proposal. However, we believe it is essential for this initiative to align with the vision and work of both Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation.
led by [names], with participation from the Arbitrum Research and Development Program, Offchain Labs, and the Arbitrum Foundation.
Are Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation onboard with the DAO leading this initiative? and, are they open for collaboration with whoever the DAO selects?
Up to this point, all major technical upgrades have come from the core team. As this would be a main change in how Arbitrum works, this initiative needs to be in close collaboration with Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation. A disjointed effort would lead to suboptimal results, other than waste of resources.
Thank you @maxlomu for sharing this proposal. Your comparative analysis of the rollup space was valuable and painted a clear picture of the competitive landscape . Echoing others, it’s clear that Arbitrum needs to enhance interoperability and improve the user experience across its ecosystem of Orbit chains.
Since the proposal doesn't include a budget or the names of technical contributors committed to joining the working group, it seems the Snapshot that you plan to create tomorrow is primarily intended as a sentiment check to gauge the DAO’s interest in forming a working group to explore Orbit chain interoperability.
Thank you @maxlomu for sharing this proposal. Your comparative analysis of the rollup space was valuable and painted a clear picture of the competitive landscape . Echoing others, it’s clear that Arbitrum needs to enhance interoperability and improve the user experience across its ecosystem of Orbit chains.
Since the proposal doesn't include a budget or the names of technical contributors committed to joining the working group, it seems the Snapshot that you plan to create tomorrow is primarily intended as a sentiment check to gauge the DAO’s interest in forming a working group to explore Orbit chain interoperability.
If this assumption is correct, then our ability to make an informed decision on whether to move forward with this initiative is limited. We would need to see commitments from at least a few technically-skilled DAO contributors who have the time and desire along with commitment from OCL and the Foundation to join your proposed working group.
We are glad to see Offchain Labs join the discussion on the forum and share that their teams are exploring approaches to enhancing interoperability. However, without a hard commitment from OCL to collaborate with the DAO’s efforts, we are cautious of the value and impact that the working group will bring.
Bobby from Across. The proposals overall aim of enabling chain abstraction is a sound goal, and as outlined in the post, multiple teams are already working on this in various ways.
Regarding the phases, I believe that Phases 1 and 2 will have the most significant impact. I think it would be most beneficial for these three parties (DAO, OCL, and Foundation) to work together in researching each solution - including intent-based bridging, messaging layer development, - to thoroughly understand the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
Bobby from Across. The proposals overall aim of enabling chain abstraction is a sound goal, and as outlined in the post, multiple teams are already working on this in various ways.
Regarding the phases, I believe that Phases 1 and 2 will have the most significant impact. I think it would be most beneficial for these three parties (DAO, OCL, and Foundation) to work together in researching each solution - including intent-based bridging, messaging layer development, - to thoroughly understand the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
I'd like to highlight some key non-technical differences between Optimism and Arbitrum's approaches to builder engagement and ecosystem connectivity. Optimism has successfully created a more cohesive and welcoming environment through several strategic initiatives.
Superbridgg or bridgg show you most OP Stack chains and let you bridge between them directly via Across,CCTP or canonical routes. This visibility makes OP chains more attractive to builders, as their projects gain immediate recognition within the ecosystem.
From the volume flowing through these to Across we can confirm a fair amount transaction volume flowing through these frontend interfaces. Currently, Arbitrum lacks a comparable solution. I strongly recommend playing with the Superbridgg UI.
Additionally, Optimism's Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF) program provides tangible benefits to OP chains. Their current "mission" grant program for op chains offers flexible funding opportunities. While neither of these initiatives directly addresses technical interoperability, they make the Optimism ecosystem significantly more attractive to builders from a business and community perspective.
The Arbitrum DAO should consider developing similar ecosystem-building initiatives to enhance its appeal to developers and projects.
The growing popularity of intent-based bridges is largely due to their ability to provide fast transaction fills, improving overall user experience. However, it's crucial for the DAO and broader ecosystem to understand that not all intent-based bridges are designed equally. These systems can vary significantly in their implementation and risk profiles. I believe it would be valuable for us to develop a deeper understanding of these various design choices and their implications.
Key differences exist in several areas (as examples)
The messaging layer situation deserves similar detailed analysis. Uniswap conducted a comparable study a couple of years ago. These types of analytical reports enable orbit chains to make more informed decisions about their infrastructure choices.
Both of these reports are impactful for the arb ecosystem and should be conducted with OCL and Foundation IMO.
This section is to provide some context on the ‘clearing’/rebalancing layer.
Per the Chain Abstraction Stack Table in the proposal; “Ensure Solvers are refunded on their preferred chains and prevent liquidity from being stuck”
Relayers are economically incentivized actors and are here to do a service to get paid. They will rebalance their funds in whatever way they feel fit;
CEX
using the canonical solution (which is a lot faster now thanks to fast withdrawals and eventually Chain Mesh)
Decentralized solution like Everclear
PS: Across LP pool (Specific to Across Relayers and if they want to get paid on another chain that isn’t the source chain)
The various clearing solutions each come with their own set of trade-offs, whether in terms of cost, centralization, or speed. However, I don't understand why the DAO needs to make specific recommendations regarding clearing layers, as this primarily concerns solvers/relayers rather than Orbit chains or the Arbitrum DAO itself. Also the only protocol clearing layer is everclear, afaik.
Solvers are fundamentally chain-agnostic actors driven by economic incentives, and they're already well-versed in the available rebalancing solutions. Given this context, I'm uncertain about the actual impact of a clearing-focused RFP. Since we consider solvers to operate in an open market, it would be logical to treat the clearing layer similarly - as an open market solution.
What would be more beneficial is focusing on attracting more solvers to the Arbitrum ecosystem, particularly as ERC-7683 continues to develop.
Would be curious to hear @Bobbay thoughts as Across works on a similar mission.
I am aligned that interoperability among orbit chains is needed, so would be good to know where @Camelot stands on the issues and potential solutions here.
i would like more specifics on numbers and the specific approach we should zero in on out of the universe of things we can do.
###Transcript and audio: https://otter.ai/u/8-IvZT1XLQ-yNOL3PBdgrFMkvHo?view=transcript
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We would like to thank @maxlomu for presenting this proposal while the narrative out is around Chain Abstraction & we as a leading DAO shall act towards capturing the market. The timing of the proposal is apt.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We would like to thank @maxlomu for presenting this proposal while the narrative out is around Chain Abstraction & we as a leading DAO shall act towards capturing the market. The timing of the proposal is apt.
We listened to the presentation & were able to see the research already put in before the proposal. The effort put into the proposal to make clear the entire concept along with examples at every layer helps further clear the doubts accumulated at the start of the proposal.
The lack of a cohesive ecosystem among the Arbitrum Orbit chain has led to not many conversations around Arbitrum Clusters or Chain Mesh.
As the proposal is to move forward with a working group to research more on this topic, we are supportive of the same.
A few questions we have are -
Had a few more questions but the post by @AlexLumley & the proposal over here along with the presentation at the bi-weekly call have provided clarity.
Moreover, the comment from offchainlabs reassures our support.
While you've already mentioned interoperability and mobility, you can further emphasize the “user experience” as a core driver for engaging developers and users. Simplifying complex inter-chain operations into a seamless user experience makes it easier for the average user to embrace and engage, which directly drives adoption. In the narrative, the focus is on “Arbitrum makes complexity simple, so that users and developers no longer need to worry about technical barriers between chains”. The lack of a unified narrative between Orbit chains leads to a sense of ecological fragmentation, which is a key pain point. The proposal highlights the point that a strong and unified narrative attracts more users and builders to the Arbitrum ecosystem, and this is exactly what needs to be achieved through chain abstraction and interoperability.
Future incentives, such as how to attract developers to deploy applications on the Orbit chain, could be modestly mentioned. Chain abstraction can not only lead technically, but also provide developers with simple tools and mobility support, along with appropriate incentives to help attract developers quickly.
By improving interoperability, builders can more easily provide users with a seamless cross-chain experience. Users don't need to worry about the underlying technical details and simply enjoy a simplified interaction process, which will make Arbitrum even more attractive, especially when it comes to liquidity. Making Arbitrum One the mobility hub for all Orbit chains will greatly enhance the network effect of the entire ecosystem.
Although Arbitrum is technically powerful, has sufficient liquidity, and an active community, the interoperability problem after Orbit chain expansion leads to a poor user experience and fragmented liquidity. Compared with other L2 ecologies, Arbitrum's narrative lags behind. If it can effectively launch roll out some new features such as Fast Withdrawal and Layer Leap, it will help improve chain-to-chain interoperability and make the experience smoother for users and builders. If successful, Arbitrum could be the first ecosystem to implement chain abstraction, truly making Orbit chains seamless and liquidity flow quickly throughout the ecosystem.
We definitely need to regain some lost ground, and addressing these issues is essential if we want to do so. As stated during the bi-weekly governance call, the Arbitrum Stack is powerful but is being applied in a rather isolated manner. This critical lack of interoperability works against us if we want and need to attract developers who will continue to help our ecosystem grow.
We know that the debate on this proposal is just beginning, but we want to emphasize the importance of taking the necessary time to finalize a solid proposal, given its importance.
We definitely need to regain some lost ground, and addressing these issues is essential if we want to do so. As stated during the bi-weekly governance call, the Arbitrum Stack is powerful but is being applied in a rather isolated manner. This critical lack of interoperability works against us if we want and need to attract developers who will continue to help our ecosystem grow.
We know that the debate on this proposal is just beginning, but we want to emphasize the importance of taking the necessary time to finalize a solid proposal, given its importance.
Regarding Phase 0, we are unsure if it is being developed at this stage or after being approved. Our team believes it should take place during this stage of the proposal, not after it has been approved. This way, the proposal can be improved, and we can vote on something more aligned with direct execution.
led by [names], with participation from the Arbitrum Research and Development Program, Offchain Labs, and the Arbitrum Foundation.
To enter the debate, have any potential names been suggested to lead these working groups? Or are you expecting suggestions from the community?
Interoperability between chains is an important feature, and will be an important continued narrative and technical differentiator as other chains like Optimism continue to develop their offering in this area. Arbitrum should for sure be looking in to how to enable this for the relevant Orbit chains.
That said, this proposal is typical of proposals to the DAO in that it has limited information about deliverables and budget and timeline. We would like to see far more details about the costs and expected outputs before voting for this proposal.
Great proposal! Right now, the lack of a smooth cross-chain experience is holding back both developers and users, splitting liquidity and making our ecosystem look weaker compared to other rollup options like Optimism. I think it’s important that the proposal not only focuses on interoperability but also lays out a clear strategy for communicating the perks of using Orbit chains so everyone gets it. With cool new features like 'Fast Withdrawals,' 'Enable Clusters,' and 'Layer Leap,' we're heading toward a more user-friendly ecosystem. Just one suggestion: adding more details about incentives for developers and users would really help drive adoption of these new tools.
To bring this vision to reality, it is necessary to help bootstrap and promote this stack across all Orbit chains, and this is the purpose of this proposal.
Glad to see this proposal! Interoperability and liquidity flow between Orbit chains are crucial issues to address if we want to stay competitive in the L2 space. Have you thought about incentives that could be offered for Orbit chains to adopt the Chain Mesh? Offering additional incentives for builders, like grants or gas rebates, could help attract more adoption and compete with ecosystems like Optimism that are offering similar perks.
Thanks everyone for the extensive feedback. As we continue investigating the fastest and most efficient ways to implement this, I'll try to clarify some points and how the mental model is evolving.
Up to this point, all major technical upgrades have come from the core team. As this would be a main change in how Arbitrum works, this initiative needs to be in close collaboration with Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation. A disjointed effort would lead to suboptimal results, other than waste of resources.
All of this Chain Abstraction stack sits on top of Arbitrum - meaning that there is no strict need for OCL to do anything. All solutions are independent providers, some of them are already deployed on Arbitrum One in a permissionless way. OCL wants to and will get involved in any decision making, in particular we will follow their guidelines if they identify specific EIP/standards that should be embraced by the selected solutions.
Then what is the purpose of this initiative? Enable builders to deliver the best experience on Arbitrum with the right tools
Example of outputs:
We received 2 recurring questions so far:
We are conducting interviews with major apps and chains to gather a better understanding.
As of now I believe there are 3 requirements:
There are different forms this could be shaped.
Building a new Orbit-focused bridge UI may not be the optimal approach.
In the short term, the objective is to have the shortest path to MVP defined and implemented:
This must be concluded in the next few weeks - we want to test it fast. I want to reduce bureaucracy to the minimum - Snapshot timeline will not be met today.
In the long term, we should focus on a comprehensive package that is
Thanks for the proposal!
I have a few questions:
led by [names], with participation from the Arbitrum Research and Development Program, Offchain Labs, and the Arbitrum Foundation.
Do we have a full commitment from the other entities? I assume that we are talking about the ARDC here. Does the current timeline fit into the ARDC v2 timeline?
What exactly would go up to a vote by the 31st? What is the budget for it? I assume that the second item is Open application, correct? What is the profile we are looking for?
Thanks in advance!
Thank you, @maxlomu, for this RFC. I learned about it during last week's Governance call. As a new delegate, it helped me better understand the strategy of Arbitrum and its key technical strengths.
In my opinion, positioning Arbitrum as the chain abstraction ecosystem should be a core goal to increase activity and TVL. This is a key KPI that can be monitored to measure the efficiency of such an initiative. I just noticed that Base has now surpassed Arbitrum in TVL; the competition is indeed fierce. In my view, an ecosystem that enables account abstraction, shared liquidity, and maximises network effects will succeed in attracting builders, applications, users and TVL.
Thank you, @maxlomu, for this RFC. I learned about it during last week's Governance call. As a new delegate, it helped me better understand the strategy of Arbitrum and its key technical strengths.
In my opinion, positioning Arbitrum as the chain abstraction ecosystem should be a core goal to increase activity and TVL. This is a key KPI that can be monitored to measure the efficiency of such an initiative. I just noticed that Base has now surpassed Arbitrum in TVL; the competition is indeed fierce. In my view, an ecosystem that enables account abstraction, shared liquidity, and maximises network effects will succeed in attracting builders, applications, users and TVL.
Additionally, there is a significant branding aspect in this competitive space. The term 'Superchain' may have initially seemed a bit 'pushy,' but it has apparently gained traction, and now everyone is incorporating it into their communications (e.g., UniChain, as mentioned).
In my opinion, this initiative could be an opportunity for Arbitrum to promote the 'chain abstraction narrative' with some distinctive branding and recognizable keywords. The current terminology of 'Arbitrum and Orbit Chains' might suggest more fragmentation than an ecosystem unified by chain abstraction, especially compared to the competition from a unified 'Superchain.’ However, I understand that branding is a complex topic and I don't have the full history about Arbirum ones, so might be a bit off-topic there. ( Also narrative, branding seems not to be the only aspects to attract big players https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2024/10/29/optimism-foundation-agreed-to-give-kraken-425m-of-op-tokens-in-layer-2-deal/ … )
I support this initiative, provided that the budget allocated aligns with industry standards and reputable service providers are onboarded during the RFP phase. Good to see the support of OCL and I am eager to witness how this progresses with a live working group !
I think this proposal is solid on the technical side, but if Orbit wants to attract developers like Superchain has, it’s going to take more than just the stack. Superchain has a clear narrative and strong identity that attracts people who want an aligned community. Without something similar, Orbit chains might keep feeling a bit fragmented.
I have seen other initiatives, like the Orbit Ecosystem Fund and the Orbit Stimulus Pilot. These programs help to boost growth and are great as a foundation, but to keep up the momentum long-term, it’s probably going to take more than just funding.
I think this proposal is solid on the technical side, but if Orbit wants to attract developers like Superchain has, it’s going to take more than just the stack. Superchain has a clear narrative and strong identity that attracts people who want an aligned community. Without something similar, Orbit chains might keep feeling a bit fragmented.
I have seen other initiatives, like the Orbit Ecosystem Fund and the Orbit Stimulus Pilot. These programs help to boost growth and are great as a foundation, but to keep up the momentum long-term, it’s probably going to take more than just funding.
Also, the intent-based architecture is powerful, but it’s going to need education and some incentives for people to really get on board. We know that new technologies like cross-chain liquidity solutions tend to struggle at the start without good support strategies. Orbit would benefit a lot from offering educational resources and grants to help developers understand and use the new stack.
About incentives, Superchain has stayed in the spotlight because they’re consistent with their support for developers (RetroPGF, https://optimism.io/build). Orbit already kicked off with funds and initiatives like the Stimulus Pilot, but I agree that a structured and steady approach would help secure that long-term growth.
Finally, making Orbit attractive to developers isn’t just about incentives. Improving the onboarding process with things like an easy deployment template and tutorials could make a huge difference. For devs who value decentralization, Orbit has an opportunity to emphasize interoperability without enforcing centralized chain configurations, setting it apart from Superchain’s centralized approach. Overall, I think that a well-defined narrative and clear resources for developers could make Orbit the place for those looking for flexibility and support.
I'm glad to see a proposal like this making its way to the DAO. Between this post and the call, it's clear there is a lot of thought going into this - which is great because I think fragmentation is huge area of concern to address as Ethereum grows more L2 dependent. So I don't have much to really add to this other then I look forward to this going forward, as this is something to address sooner then later.
I will echo one question brought up by @karpatkey (see below). I saw a reply by @offchainlabs below, however I wasn't 100% sure if that was the official account (I saw it was created like 2 months ago). Regardless, it seems even if that response is the official team then I don't see indication Offchain labs has made a final decision on how they want to handle this.
I'm glad to see a proposal like this making its way to the DAO. Between this post and the call, it's clear there is a lot of thought going into this - which is great because I think fragmentation is huge area of concern to address as Ethereum grows more L2 dependent. So I don't have much to really add to this other then I look forward to this going forward, as this is something to address sooner then later.
I will echo one question brought up by @karpatkey (see below). I saw a reply by @offchainlabs below, however I wasn't 100% sure if that was the official account (I saw it was created like 2 months ago). Regardless, it seems even if that response is the official team then I don't see indication Offchain labs has made a final decision on how they want to handle this.
I don't think delaying the timeline here is a good idea, but I also think were in a situation where we can spin up all this work only to find out Offchain labs is wanting to handle this in house. Is there any indication a decision on this matter would be determined prior to December?
Are Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation onboard with the DAO leading this initiative? and, are they open for collaboration with whoever the DAO selects?
Up to this point, all major technical upgrades have come from the core team. As this would be a main change in how Arbitrum works, this initiative needs to be in close collaboration with Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation. A disjointed effort would lead to suboptimal results, other than waste of resources.
We believe interoperability is a key point of discussion, thank you @maxlomu for bringing it up.
As of today, the user experience when interacting with DeFi is disconnected, with both users and liquidity fragmented across a variety of different chains. This has proven a key issue with the raise of L2s and alternative L1s. Therefore, it feels essential to discuss this topic in the context of Arbitrum Orbit chains to hopefully avoid replicating the same issues of fragmented user experience and liquidity inefficiency.
We believe interoperability is a key point of discussion, thank you @maxlomu for bringing it up.
As of today, the user experience when interacting with DeFi is disconnected, with both users and liquidity fragmented across a variety of different chains. This has proven a key issue with the raise of L2s and alternative L1s. Therefore, it feels essential to discuss this topic in the context of Arbitrum Orbit chains to hopefully avoid replicating the same issues of fragmented user experience and liquidity inefficiency.
There lack of interoperability among Orbit chains seems to impact the cohesive ecosystem narrative or information as to how this will one day be achieved.
As part of its recent unveiling of Unichain, Uniswap tackled a similar problem as the one discussed here. While they obtain native interoperability within the Superchain, Uniswap still needs to deal with users and liquidity spread across deployments on various chains.
Similarly, Arbitrum Orbit chains needs to deal with users and liquidity spread across its various Orbit chains.
This long premise to say we agree on the motivation and understand the rationale of this proposal. However, we believe it is essential for this initiative to align with the vision and work of both Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation.
led by [names], with participation from the Arbitrum Research and Development Program, Offchain Labs, and the Arbitrum Foundation.
Are Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation onboard with the DAO leading this initiative? and, are they open for collaboration with whoever the DAO selects?
Up to this point, all major technical upgrades have come from the core team. As this would be a main change in how Arbitrum works, this initiative needs to be in close collaboration with Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation. A disjointed effort would lead to suboptimal results, other than waste of resources.
Thank you @maxlomu for sharing this proposal. Your comparative analysis of the rollup space was valuable and painted a clear picture of the competitive landscape . Echoing others, it’s clear that Arbitrum needs to enhance interoperability and improve the user experience across its ecosystem of Orbit chains.
Since the proposal doesn't include a budget or the names of technical contributors committed to joining the working group, it seems the Snapshot that you plan to create tomorrow is primarily intended as a sentiment check to gauge the DAO’s interest in forming a working group to explore Orbit chain interoperability.
Thank you @maxlomu for sharing this proposal. Your comparative analysis of the rollup space was valuable and painted a clear picture of the competitive landscape . Echoing others, it’s clear that Arbitrum needs to enhance interoperability and improve the user experience across its ecosystem of Orbit chains.
Since the proposal doesn't include a budget or the names of technical contributors committed to joining the working group, it seems the Snapshot that you plan to create tomorrow is primarily intended as a sentiment check to gauge the DAO’s interest in forming a working group to explore Orbit chain interoperability.
If this assumption is correct, then our ability to make an informed decision on whether to move forward with this initiative is limited. We would need to see commitments from at least a few technically-skilled DAO contributors who have the time and desire along with commitment from OCL and the Foundation to join your proposed working group.
We are glad to see Offchain Labs join the discussion on the forum and share that their teams are exploring approaches to enhancing interoperability. However, without a hard commitment from OCL to collaborate with the DAO’s efforts, we are cautious of the value and impact that the working group will bring.
Bobby from Across. The proposals overall aim of enabling chain abstraction is a sound goal, and as outlined in the post, multiple teams are already working on this in various ways.
Regarding the phases, I believe that Phases 1 and 2 will have the most significant impact. I think it would be most beneficial for these three parties (DAO, OCL, and Foundation) to work together in researching each solution - including intent-based bridging, messaging layer development, - to thoroughly understand the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
Bobby from Across. The proposals overall aim of enabling chain abstraction is a sound goal, and as outlined in the post, multiple teams are already working on this in various ways.
Regarding the phases, I believe that Phases 1 and 2 will have the most significant impact. I think it would be most beneficial for these three parties (DAO, OCL, and Foundation) to work together in researching each solution - including intent-based bridging, messaging layer development, - to thoroughly understand the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
I'd like to highlight some key non-technical differences between Optimism and Arbitrum's approaches to builder engagement and ecosystem connectivity. Optimism has successfully created a more cohesive and welcoming environment through several strategic initiatives.
Superbridgg or bridgg show you most OP Stack chains and let you bridge between them directly via Across,CCTP or canonical routes. This visibility makes OP chains more attractive to builders, as their projects gain immediate recognition within the ecosystem.
From the volume flowing through these to Across we can confirm a fair amount transaction volume flowing through these frontend interfaces. Currently, Arbitrum lacks a comparable solution. I strongly recommend playing with the Superbridgg UI.
Additionally, Optimism's Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF) program provides tangible benefits to OP chains. Their current "mission" grant program for op chains offers flexible funding opportunities. While neither of these initiatives directly addresses technical interoperability, they make the Optimism ecosystem significantly more attractive to builders from a business and community perspective.
The Arbitrum DAO should consider developing similar ecosystem-building initiatives to enhance its appeal to developers and projects.
The growing popularity of intent-based bridges is largely due to their ability to provide fast transaction fills, improving overall user experience. However, it's crucial for the DAO and broader ecosystem to understand that not all intent-based bridges are designed equally. These systems can vary significantly in their implementation and risk profiles. I believe it would be valuable for us to develop a deeper understanding of these various design choices and their implications.
Key differences exist in several areas (as examples)
The messaging layer situation deserves similar detailed analysis. Uniswap conducted a comparable study a couple of years ago. These types of analytical reports enable orbit chains to make more informed decisions about their infrastructure choices.
Both of these reports are impactful for the arb ecosystem and should be conducted with OCL and Foundation IMO.
This section is to provide some context on the ‘clearing’/rebalancing layer.
Per the Chain Abstraction Stack Table in the proposal; “Ensure Solvers are refunded on their preferred chains and prevent liquidity from being stuck”
Relayers are economically incentivized actors and are here to do a service to get paid. They will rebalance their funds in whatever way they feel fit;
CEX
using the canonical solution (which is a lot faster now thanks to fast withdrawals and eventually Chain Mesh)
Decentralized solution like Everclear
PS: Across LP pool (Specific to Across Relayers and if they want to get paid on another chain that isn’t the source chain)
The various clearing solutions each come with their own set of trade-offs, whether in terms of cost, centralization, or speed. However, I don't understand why the DAO needs to make specific recommendations regarding clearing layers, as this primarily concerns solvers/relayers rather than Orbit chains or the Arbitrum DAO itself. Also the only protocol clearing layer is everclear, afaik.
Solvers are fundamentally chain-agnostic actors driven by economic incentives, and they're already well-versed in the available rebalancing solutions. Given this context, I'm uncertain about the actual impact of a clearing-focused RFP. Since we consider solvers to operate in an open market, it would be logical to treat the clearing layer similarly - as an open market solution.
What would be more beneficial is focusing on attracting more solvers to the Arbitrum ecosystem, particularly as ERC-7683 continues to develop.
Would be curious to hear @Bobbay thoughts as Across works on a similar mission.
I am aligned that interoperability among orbit chains is needed, so would be good to know where @Camelot stands on the issues and potential solutions here.
i would like more specifics on numbers and the specific approach we should zero in on out of the universe of things we can do.
###Transcript and audio: https://otter.ai/u/8-IvZT1XLQ-yNOL3PBdgrFMkvHo?view=transcript
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We would like to thank @maxlomu for presenting this proposal while the narrative out is around Chain Abstraction & we as a leading DAO shall act towards capturing the market. The timing of the proposal is apt.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We would like to thank @maxlomu for presenting this proposal while the narrative out is around Chain Abstraction & we as a leading DAO shall act towards capturing the market. The timing of the proposal is apt.
We listened to the presentation & were able to see the research already put in before the proposal. The effort put into the proposal to make clear the entire concept along with examples at every layer helps further clear the doubts accumulated at the start of the proposal.
The lack of a cohesive ecosystem among the Arbitrum Orbit chain has led to not many conversations around Arbitrum Clusters or Chain Mesh.
As the proposal is to move forward with a working group to research more on this topic, we are supportive of the same.
A few questions we have are -
Had a few more questions but the post by @AlexLumley & the proposal over here along with the presentation at the bi-weekly call have provided clarity.
Moreover, the comment from offchainlabs reassures our support.
While you've already mentioned interoperability and mobility, you can further emphasize the “user experience” as a core driver for engaging developers and users. Simplifying complex inter-chain operations into a seamless user experience makes it easier for the average user to embrace and engage, which directly drives adoption. In the narrative, the focus is on “Arbitrum makes complexity simple, so that users and developers no longer need to worry about technical barriers between chains”. The lack of a unified narrative between Orbit chains leads to a sense of ecological fragmentation, which is a key pain point. The proposal highlights the point that a strong and unified narrative attracts more users and builders to the Arbitrum ecosystem, and this is exactly what needs to be achieved through chain abstraction and interoperability.
Future incentives, such as how to attract developers to deploy applications on the Orbit chain, could be modestly mentioned. Chain abstraction can not only lead technically, but also provide developers with simple tools and mobility support, along with appropriate incentives to help attract developers quickly.
By improving interoperability, builders can more easily provide users with a seamless cross-chain experience. Users don't need to worry about the underlying technical details and simply enjoy a simplified interaction process, which will make Arbitrum even more attractive, especially when it comes to liquidity. Making Arbitrum One the mobility hub for all Orbit chains will greatly enhance the network effect of the entire ecosystem.
Although Arbitrum is technically powerful, has sufficient liquidity, and an active community, the interoperability problem after Orbit chain expansion leads to a poor user experience and fragmented liquidity. Compared with other L2 ecologies, Arbitrum's narrative lags behind. If it can effectively launch roll out some new features such as Fast Withdrawal and Layer Leap, it will help improve chain-to-chain interoperability and make the experience smoother for users and builders. If successful, Arbitrum could be the first ecosystem to implement chain abstraction, truly making Orbit chains seamless and liquidity flow quickly throughout the ecosystem.
We definitely need to regain some lost ground, and addressing these issues is essential if we want to do so. As stated during the bi-weekly governance call, the Arbitrum Stack is powerful but is being applied in a rather isolated manner. This critical lack of interoperability works against us if we want and need to attract developers who will continue to help our ecosystem grow.
We know that the debate on this proposal is just beginning, but we want to emphasize the importance of taking the necessary time to finalize a solid proposal, given its importance.
We definitely need to regain some lost ground, and addressing these issues is essential if we want to do so. As stated during the bi-weekly governance call, the Arbitrum Stack is powerful but is being applied in a rather isolated manner. This critical lack of interoperability works against us if we want and need to attract developers who will continue to help our ecosystem grow.
We know that the debate on this proposal is just beginning, but we want to emphasize the importance of taking the necessary time to finalize a solid proposal, given its importance.
Regarding Phase 0, we are unsure if it is being developed at this stage or after being approved. Our team believes it should take place during this stage of the proposal, not after it has been approved. This way, the proposal can be improved, and we can vote on something more aligned with direct execution.
led by [names], with participation from the Arbitrum Research and Development Program, Offchain Labs, and the Arbitrum Foundation.
To enter the debate, have any potential names been suggested to lead these working groups? Or are you expecting suggestions from the community?
Interoperability between chains is an important feature, and will be an important continued narrative and technical differentiator as other chains like Optimism continue to develop their offering in this area. Arbitrum should for sure be looking in to how to enable this for the relevant Orbit chains.
That said, this proposal is typical of proposals to the DAO in that it has limited information about deliverables and budget and timeline. We would like to see far more details about the costs and expected outputs before voting for this proposal.
Great proposal! Right now, the lack of a smooth cross-chain experience is holding back both developers and users, splitting liquidity and making our ecosystem look weaker compared to other rollup options like Optimism. I think it’s important that the proposal not only focuses on interoperability but also lays out a clear strategy for communicating the perks of using Orbit chains so everyone gets it. With cool new features like 'Fast Withdrawals,' 'Enable Clusters,' and 'Layer Leap,' we're heading toward a more user-friendly ecosystem. Just one suggestion: adding more details about incentives for developers and users would really help drive adoption of these new tools.
To bring this vision to reality, it is necessary to help bootstrap and promote this stack across all Orbit chains, and this is the purpose of this proposal.
Glad to see this proposal! Interoperability and liquidity flow between Orbit chains are crucial issues to address if we want to stay competitive in the L2 space. Have you thought about incentives that could be offered for Orbit chains to adopt the Chain Mesh? Offering additional incentives for builders, like grants or gas rebates, could help attract more adoption and compete with ecosystems like Optimism that are offering similar perks.
###Transcript and audio: https://otter.ai/u/8-IvZT1XLQ-yNOL3PBdgrFMkvHo?view=transcript
The meeting discussed the Chain Abstraction Package proposal aimed at enhancing Arbitrum's appeal to developers by creating a compelling value proposition. Max Lomu highlighted the need for interoperability and chain abstraction to make Arbitrum more attractive, comparing it to other ecosystems like ZK and super chains. The proposal includes setting up a working group to align with ecosystem players, conduct research, and create a snapshot for a larger budget request. The working group will focus on ensuring a seamless user experience across different chains, leveraging existing solutions like intents and liquidity bridges. The timeline aims for a full DAO proposal by December and implementation by Q2 2023.
Interoperability between chains is an important feature, and will be an important continued narrative and technical differentiator as other chains like Optimism continue to develop their offering in this area. Arbitrum should for sure be looking in to how to enable this for the relevant Orbit chains.
That said, this proposal is typical of proposals to the DAO in that it has limited information about deliverables and budget and timeline. We would like to see far more details about the costs and expected outputs before voting for this proposal.
With a clear budget and deliverables, we would be in support of this proposal as it is a necessary technical step for Arbitrum ecosystem.
To bring this vision to reality, it is necessary to help bootstrap and promote this stack across all Orbit chains, and this is the purpose of this proposal.
This section is more informative on chain abstraction and showing examples of how chain abstraction can be achieved today. To be clear, I am not saying Chain abstraction in today's form is perfect and there is a lot that can be done; integration process, more network support, education resources.
Across today is an intent-based bridge, with a decentralized relayer network of 25+ relayers that enables chain abstraction. Uniswap recently integrated us into their protocol too.
We have arbitrum dapps such as Umami who leverage Across for chain abstraction. Umami enables users to bridge USDC from any Across-supported chain and deposit it directly into their USDC vaults, all through a single click and within seconds. This seamless functionality extends to their other offerings, including their ETH vaults.
The majority of dapps primarily utilize ETH or USDC for cross-chain operations, and Across already provides robust support for these use cases today.
What do I think could improve?
I heard the proposal during the call and just went through it, and I believe it’s the right path to follow. We must expand the Orbit Chain’s usability and capitalize on ARB’s strengths, as ARB is losing ground to Superchain. I think it's crucial to shift the narrative and capture the same attention as other clusters. Once the tech is ready, we’ll also need a major marketing push to attract both developers and users.
I also agree with @larva that we need stronger sales and social connections.
I heard the proposal during the call and just went through it, and I believe it’s the right path to follow. We must expand the Orbit Chain’s usability and capitalize on ARB’s strengths, as ARB is losing ground to Superchain. I think it's crucial to shift the narrative and capture the same attention as other clusters. Once the tech is ready, we’ll also need a major marketing push to attract both developers and users.
I also agree with @larva that we need stronger sales and social connections.
Thanks for the proposal.
I am glad to finally see a fresh look at the development of Arbitrum. I am glad that we will have a task worth working for.
However, judging by the globality of this initiative, I think that the completion of this idea should be expected at least a year.
I also have a questions :
I am glad to finally see a fresh look at the development of Arbitrum. I am glad that we will have a task worth working for.
However, judging by the globality of this initiative, I think that the completion of this idea should be expected at least a year.
I also have a questions :
In fact, there are a lot of questions, we just need to understand what the architecture of this abstraction will look like, whether it will be reliable, whether it will be possible to check where exactly the user ends up, etc.
Hey all, thanks for all your feedback and questions. We just ran the 1st call around the project and there's a lot to work on.
I'll try to answer the questions posted - the actual outcome will be decided during the calls and once the working group has been set up.
Hey all, thanks for all your feedback and questions. We just ran the 1st call around the project and there's a lot to work on.
I'll try to answer the questions posted - the actual outcome will be decided during the calls and once the working group has been set up.
First, Superchain is easier to use, making it simpler for builders to start their own chain. Second, Optimism DAO has invested far more funding into competition, attracting top projects like Base, Mode, and Worldcoin. Lastly, and I’m not entirely sure about this, the Optimism team seems to have stronger social connections with VCs and top teams—their sales skills appear better
Curious as to why would you say the Superchain is easier to use? From what perspective? I have full trust in the OCL sales team, and hopefully, with the recently approved extra budget, both they and the Foundation will be able to onboard better deals.
Nothing is compulsory, but this is the direction the market is converging to—one where users can interact with a chain [on Arbitrum] from anywhere. This means that if they hold funds on Ethereum/Polygon/Optimism, they will be able to swap, deposit, or interact with an app on Arbitrum with just one click. App builders will ultimately need to implement some code to enable this kind of transaction—and for the experience to be seamless, the stack outlined above needs to be implemented. However, builders are free to choose if they don’t want to adopt it.
To enter the debate, have any potential names been suggested to lead these working groups? Or are you expecting suggestions from the community?
The calls being run are open to everyone - However some "council" would be required to make the final decisions. We are asking team members of OCL, Foundation, ARDC, Entropy and other key stakeholders of Arbitrum if they want to get involved.
Superbridgg or bridgg show you most OP Stack chains and let you bridge between them directly via Across,CCTP or canonical routes. This visibility makes OP chains more attractive to builders, as their projects gain immediate recognition within the ecosystem.
Thanks. I think these are good perspectives that we need to take into consideration for the final proposal.
The Arbitrum DAO should consider developing similar ecosystem-building initiatives to enhance its appeal to developers and projects.
Yes, there are plenty of solutions in the market with different tradeoffs. The expected analysis should be around security, UX provided, sustainability, alignment with Arbitrum ecosystem, ecc
In regards to the clearing layer
The various clearing solutions each come with their own set of trade-offs, whether in terms of cost, centralization, or speed. However, I don’t understand why the DAO needs to make specific recommendations regarding clearing layers, as this primarily concerns solvers/relayers rather than Orbit chains or the Arbitrum DAO itself.
All solutions from all layers exist in the open market. However, for the system to be sustainable, it needs to be bootstrapped.
It’s unlikely that a solver will support a new, small chain from day 1 if other chains already have higher volume—the opportunity cost of their capital is too high.
Additionally, since Orbit chains are mostly long-tail chains, they often lack direct connections with CEXs, making that option unavailable.
As for "canonical solutions," they are not fully live and don't address the issue. These solutions either function in a one-directional manner (eg Chain Mesh is unlikely to be used for Chain X → Arbitrum; it will primarily support Arbitrum → Chain X), or involve high trust assumptions (like Fast Withdrawals, which rely on a trusted committee and are recommended only for AnyTrust chains).
Clearing layers simplify and improve efficiency for solvers, enabling even smaller solvers to increase profitability and support long-tail chains. They can also be incentivized only when they provide value, rather than requiring indefinite incentives.
I fully support this, once the stack is defined we should push for a wide adoption within the Arbitrum ecosystem. I also think Across is one of the great solutions out there and you guys should apply for the RFP.
Thank you for this proposal! It’s both important and timely because we must admit that Superchain currently has far more influence than Orbit. I’ve looked into the reasons behind this and seems there are 3 main factors. First, Superchain is easier to use, making it simpler for builders to start their own chain. Second, Optimism DAO has invested far more funding into competition, attracting top projects like Base, Mode, and Worldcoin. Lastly, and I’m not entirely sure about this, the Optimism team seems to have stronger social connections with VCs and top teams—their sales skills appear better. So, I believe Orbit's backwardness isn't just a technical problem.
I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts. Only by understanding our weaknesses can we find the right way to catch up or even surpass the competitors. Open to discussion!
I am familiar with Everclear and from an across perspective (for relayers), its great that relayers have this as another option!
My original point wasn’t questioning Everclear but questioning the RFP for the clearing layer as it is a bit confusing because everclear is the only protocol that will apply as other solutions (CEX, canonical) aren’t a protocol and can’t apply for this. I’m not too bothered about this tbh, and I was wondering whether other solutions would be researched and presented too really.
I am familiar with Everclear and from an across perspective (for relayers), its great that relayers have this as another option!
My original point wasn’t questioning Everclear but questioning the RFP for the clearing layer as it is a bit confusing because everclear is the only protocol that will apply as other solutions (CEX, canonical) aren’t a protocol and can’t apply for this. I’m not too bothered about this tbh, and I was wondering whether other solutions would be researched and presented too really.
I would rather focus on seeing how this proposal can incorporate some of the ideas such as superbridgg in a more short term manner till the stack is defined. It will take a while to define the stack so in the mean time, what can be done?
###Transcript and audio: https://otter.ai/u/8-IvZT1XLQ-yNOL3PBdgrFMkvHo?view=transcript
The meeting discussed the Chain Abstraction Package proposal aimed at enhancing Arbitrum's appeal to developers by creating a compelling value proposition. Max Lomu highlighted the need for interoperability and chain abstraction to make Arbitrum more attractive, comparing it to other ecosystems like ZK and super chains. The proposal includes setting up a working group to align with ecosystem players, conduct research, and create a snapshot for a larger budget request. The working group will focus on ensuring a seamless user experience across different chains, leveraging existing solutions like intents and liquidity bridges. The timeline aims for a full DAO proposal by December and implementation by Q2 2023.
Interoperability between chains is an important feature, and will be an important continued narrative and technical differentiator as other chains like Optimism continue to develop their offering in this area. Arbitrum should for sure be looking in to how to enable this for the relevant Orbit chains.
That said, this proposal is typical of proposals to the DAO in that it has limited information about deliverables and budget and timeline. We would like to see far more details about the costs and expected outputs before voting for this proposal.
With a clear budget and deliverables, we would be in support of this proposal as it is a necessary technical step for Arbitrum ecosystem.
To bring this vision to reality, it is necessary to help bootstrap and promote this stack across all Orbit chains, and this is the purpose of this proposal.
This section is more informative on chain abstraction and showing examples of how chain abstraction can be achieved today. To be clear, I am not saying Chain abstraction in today's form is perfect and there is a lot that can be done; integration process, more network support, education resources.
Across today is an intent-based bridge, with a decentralized relayer network of 25+ relayers that enables chain abstraction. Uniswap recently integrated us into their protocol too.
We have arbitrum dapps such as Umami who leverage Across for chain abstraction. Umami enables users to bridge USDC from any Across-supported chain and deposit it directly into their USDC vaults, all through a single click and within seconds. This seamless functionality extends to their other offerings, including their ETH vaults.
The majority of dapps primarily utilize ETH or USDC for cross-chain operations, and Across already provides robust support for these use cases today.
What do I think could improve?
I heard the proposal during the call and just went through it, and I believe it’s the right path to follow. We must expand the Orbit Chain’s usability and capitalize on ARB’s strengths, as ARB is losing ground to Superchain. I think it's crucial to shift the narrative and capture the same attention as other clusters. Once the tech is ready, we’ll also need a major marketing push to attract both developers and users.
I also agree with @larva that we need stronger sales and social connections.
I heard the proposal during the call and just went through it, and I believe it’s the right path to follow. We must expand the Orbit Chain’s usability and capitalize on ARB’s strengths, as ARB is losing ground to Superchain. I think it's crucial to shift the narrative and capture the same attention as other clusters. Once the tech is ready, we’ll also need a major marketing push to attract both developers and users.
I also agree with @larva that we need stronger sales and social connections.
Thanks for the proposal.
I am glad to finally see a fresh look at the development of Arbitrum. I am glad that we will have a task worth working for.
However, judging by the globality of this initiative, I think that the completion of this idea should be expected at least a year.
I also have a questions :
I am glad to finally see a fresh look at the development of Arbitrum. I am glad that we will have a task worth working for.
However, judging by the globality of this initiative, I think that the completion of this idea should be expected at least a year.
I also have a questions :
In fact, there are a lot of questions, we just need to understand what the architecture of this abstraction will look like, whether it will be reliable, whether it will be possible to check where exactly the user ends up, etc.
Hey all, thanks for all your feedback and questions. We just ran the 1st call around the project and there's a lot to work on.
I'll try to answer the questions posted - the actual outcome will be decided during the calls and once the working group has been set up.
Hey all, thanks for all your feedback and questions. We just ran the 1st call around the project and there's a lot to work on.
I'll try to answer the questions posted - the actual outcome will be decided during the calls and once the working group has been set up.
First, Superchain is easier to use, making it simpler for builders to start their own chain. Second, Optimism DAO has invested far more funding into competition, attracting top projects like Base, Mode, and Worldcoin. Lastly, and I’m not entirely sure about this, the Optimism team seems to have stronger social connections with VCs and top teams—their sales skills appear better
Curious as to why would you say the Superchain is easier to use? From what perspective? I have full trust in the OCL sales team, and hopefully, with the recently approved extra budget, both they and the Foundation will be able to onboard better deals.
Nothing is compulsory, but this is the direction the market is converging to—one where users can interact with a chain [on Arbitrum] from anywhere. This means that if they hold funds on Ethereum/Polygon/Optimism, they will be able to swap, deposit, or interact with an app on Arbitrum with just one click. App builders will ultimately need to implement some code to enable this kind of transaction—and for the experience to be seamless, the stack outlined above needs to be implemented. However, builders are free to choose if they don’t want to adopt it.
To enter the debate, have any potential names been suggested to lead these working groups? Or are you expecting suggestions from the community?
The calls being run are open to everyone - However some "council" would be required to make the final decisions. We are asking team members of OCL, Foundation, ARDC, Entropy and other key stakeholders of Arbitrum if they want to get involved.
Superbridgg or bridgg show you most OP Stack chains and let you bridge between them directly via Across,CCTP or canonical routes. This visibility makes OP chains more attractive to builders, as their projects gain immediate recognition within the ecosystem.
Thanks. I think these are good perspectives that we need to take into consideration for the final proposal.
The Arbitrum DAO should consider developing similar ecosystem-building initiatives to enhance its appeal to developers and projects.
Yes, there are plenty of solutions in the market with different tradeoffs. The expected analysis should be around security, UX provided, sustainability, alignment with Arbitrum ecosystem, ecc
In regards to the clearing layer
The various clearing solutions each come with their own set of trade-offs, whether in terms of cost, centralization, or speed. However, I don’t understand why the DAO needs to make specific recommendations regarding clearing layers, as this primarily concerns solvers/relayers rather than Orbit chains or the Arbitrum DAO itself.
All solutions from all layers exist in the open market. However, for the system to be sustainable, it needs to be bootstrapped.
It’s unlikely that a solver will support a new, small chain from day 1 if other chains already have higher volume—the opportunity cost of their capital is too high.
Additionally, since Orbit chains are mostly long-tail chains, they often lack direct connections with CEXs, making that option unavailable.
As for "canonical solutions," they are not fully live and don't address the issue. These solutions either function in a one-directional manner (eg Chain Mesh is unlikely to be used for Chain X → Arbitrum; it will primarily support Arbitrum → Chain X), or involve high trust assumptions (like Fast Withdrawals, which rely on a trusted committee and are recommended only for AnyTrust chains).
Clearing layers simplify and improve efficiency for solvers, enabling even smaller solvers to increase profitability and support long-tail chains. They can also be incentivized only when they provide value, rather than requiring indefinite incentives.
I fully support this, once the stack is defined we should push for a wide adoption within the Arbitrum ecosystem. I also think Across is one of the great solutions out there and you guys should apply for the RFP.
Thank you for this proposal! It’s both important and timely because we must admit that Superchain currently has far more influence than Orbit. I’ve looked into the reasons behind this and seems there are 3 main factors. First, Superchain is easier to use, making it simpler for builders to start their own chain. Second, Optimism DAO has invested far more funding into competition, attracting top projects like Base, Mode, and Worldcoin. Lastly, and I’m not entirely sure about this, the Optimism team seems to have stronger social connections with VCs and top teams—their sales skills appear better. So, I believe Orbit's backwardness isn't just a technical problem.
I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts. Only by understanding our weaknesses can we find the right way to catch up or even surpass the competitors. Open to discussion!
I am familiar with Everclear and from an across perspective (for relayers), its great that relayers have this as another option!
My original point wasn’t questioning Everclear but questioning the RFP for the clearing layer as it is a bit confusing because everclear is the only protocol that will apply as other solutions (CEX, canonical) aren’t a protocol and can’t apply for this. I’m not too bothered about this tbh, and I was wondering whether other solutions would be researched and presented too really.
I am familiar with Everclear and from an across perspective (for relayers), its great that relayers have this as another option!
My original point wasn’t questioning Everclear but questioning the RFP for the clearing layer as it is a bit confusing because everclear is the only protocol that will apply as other solutions (CEX, canonical) aren’t a protocol and can’t apply for this. I’m not too bothered about this tbh, and I was wondering whether other solutions would be researched and presented too really.
I would rather focus on seeing how this proposal can incorporate some of the ideas such as superbridgg in a more short term manner till the stack is defined. It will take a while to define the stack so in the mean time, what can be done?
