2025-12-25 13:23:31

How high are the costs of cross-chain asset transfers? Doing the math will tell you.

First, exchange the currency on the starting chain, incurring slippage loss; then transfer assets via a cross-chain bridge, which also costs a bridge fee; upon reaching the target chain, exchange again, incurring another slippage loss. Three steps, three layers of cost, and the assets are already significantly reduced by the time they reach you.

What is the root cause of the problem? Traditional solutions treat cross-chain transfers as physical transportation—the assets themselves must cross the "gap" between chains. This approach is inherently inefficient and expensive.

One project has taken a different perspective. Instead of moving the assets themselves, it’s better to directly transmit the user's transaction intent. Change the mechanism, change the result. This innovative idea is worth the attention of those exploring the DeFi ecosystem.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

16 Likes

Reward
16
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

degenwhisperer

· 7h ago

The triple play of cross-chain fees is giving me a headache. I really need to find a way to change this situation. This idea is interesting. Instead of moving assets, it's better to move intentions. It feels like someone is finally seriously thinking about this. Three layers of slippage, really outrageous. My small wallet can't handle this kind of hassle. Traditional cross-chain is just a vampire, biting at every step. If this new idea can really be implemented, it will be explosive.

View OriginalReply0

rugpull_ptsd

· 7h ago

Three layers of bloodbath, the amount received is halved, I was already overwhelmed by this trick Cross-chain bridge fees are really outrageous, I always feel like I’m giving gifts to middlemen The idea of conveying this concept sounds good, but it’s probably just empty promises. Let’s wait and see if anyone can actually make it happen Slippage killer, my nightmare Conveying intent without moving assets? Isn’t that the idea behind aggregators? Old people discovering a new world, right? Another project claiming to be revolutionary, I’ll observe it further

View OriginalReply0

CafeMinor

· 7h ago

Three layers of bloodshed, I'm numb. Every cross-chain feels like my house is being stolen. --- Passing on the intent without transferring assets? Sounds good, but how well it is implemented is the key. --- Another new concept to fool users? Let's wait for user feedback first. --- Slippage, slippage, slippage, why are there so many pitfalls? --- This idea is indeed innovative, definitely better than being constantly exploited. --- Sounds nice, but what exactly is the project? Hurry up and invest a few U to try. --- I have a deep feeling about asset shrinkage, a painful lesson.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoSourGrape

· 8h ago

Damn, three layers of cutting leeks. I should have known better than to cross-chain.

View OriginalReply0

SilentObserver

· 8h ago

Three layers of blood taxes, every cross-chain feels like harvesting leeks, with slippage eating us alive. Really just mining bricks until bankruptcy, this old approach needs to be changed. Shifting intentions sounds good, but can it really save costs? We need to see how it's actually implemented. The cross-chain bridge fee has always been the biggest expense, it seems everyone in the industry is competing on this. Wait, is this another new project hyping itself? Or is there really something there? Transmitting intentions rather than assets—this idea is actually quite interesting. Every day, various cross-chain solutions—which one is truly reliable?

View OriginalReply0