As blockchain technology iterates and its applications continue to expand, a single blockchain can no longer support the ever-growing business demands. Just as the internet evolved from isolated networks to global interconnection, crypto-native infrastructure is also moving from isolated "value islands" to a "value internet." Its core is to enable seamless and verifiable transfer of value and state across different execution environments. From a data perspective, DeFiLlama's Bridged TVL data panel shows that the total value locked in global cross-chain transactions remains high, in the hundreds of billions of dollars , and maintains active liquidity. From a project perspective, terms such as cross-chain bridges, universal messaging protocols, chain abstractions, intent networks, cross-chain executors, cross-chain oracles, unified accounts/universal gas, and liquidity aggregation are emerging in large numbers. However, fundamentally, they all belong to the same track—achieving message transmission, validity proof, and finality alignment with minimal trust across multiple consensus domains, thereby realizing cross-chain resource scheduling and state consistency. Generally speaking, cross-chain refers to the specific mechanisms/protocols for secure asset/message transfer and atomic settlement between two independent consensus domains; multi-chain refers to the architecture of deploying and operating the same business or asset on multiple chains in parallel; interoperability refers to the system capability of cross-chain messages and states being exchangeable, interpretable, and locally executable. In summary, they represent different facets and dimensions of realizing the vision of "chains forming a network." This research report aims to create a multi-level, systematic panoramic view of this track in a structured manner . First, starting from the underlying state transition model and combining key scenarios driven by interaction needs , layered modeling is completed at the technology stack level to form the macro logic for deconstructing projects in this track. Subsequently, the core technical principles under different models and scenarios are analyzed in depth within this framework, followed by a detailed analysis of representative paths and implementation paradigms at each level. Finally, the evolution from single-chain standardization to multi-chain paradigms is connected by the ERC standard, extracting the development trends and future directions of the cross-chain, multi-chain, and interoperability tracks.
Author: 0xstride , Researcher at Web3Caff Research
Cover: Photo by Kanhaiya Sharma on Unsplash , Typography by Web3Caff Research
Word count: 26,800+ words in total
Table of contents
- Structured classification method for the blockchain interoperability track
- The basis of state transitions: classification by underlying transaction model
- UTXO model (Bitcoin, Nervos, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash)
- Account model (EVM compatible chain)
- Object models (Sui, Aptos)
- Driven by interaction needs: Classified by application scenario
- L1 <->︎ L1 Main Link Bridge
- L1 <->︎ L2 Vertical Expansion
- L2 <->︎ L2 Horizontal Interconnect
- Interoperability technology stack: categorized by architectural level
- Core Project Horizontal Tag Matrix
- Basic layer project matrix
- Abstract layer project matrix
- Application layer project matrix
- Analysis of interoperability mechanisms among various trading models
- Interoperability of ecological models
- UTXO: Expanding within the Bitcoin Ecosystem
- Account <-> ︎ Account: Interoperability within the EVM ecosystem
- Cross-ecological model interoperability
- UTXO<->︎EVM: Bitcoin + Smart Contracts
- EVM<->︎Move: Interoperability between account model and object model, multi-VM execution
- Interoperability of ecological models
- Cross-chain technology principles in various scenarios
- L1<->︎L1: Principle of asset/information bridging between main chains
- L1<->︎L2: Asset Transfer and State Synchronization Mechanism
- L2<->︎L2: Optimization of High-Frequency Interaction and Aggregation Path
- Interoperability between homogeneous L2 modules
- Heterogeneous L2 inter-bridging
- Analysis of cross-chain projects at various architectural levels
- Base layer: General message transmission protocol
- Axelar
- LayerZero
- Hyperlane
- Abstraction Layer: An intermediate layer between intention and chain abstraction
- XION
- Particle Network
- Supra
- Unichain
- Application layer: Asset bridge, liquidity network, user interaction portal
- Professional asset bridging services
- Aggregated liquidity network
- User entry and interface optimization
- Base layer: General message transmission protocol
- Evolution of Multi-Chain Token Paradigm from the Perspective of the ERC Standard
- Technological Evolution Stage
- Single-chain standardization
- DeFi Standardization
- Multi-chain token standardization
- Summary of key trends
- Technological Evolution Stage
- Risk Mapping and Regulatory Framework for "Chain-to-Network"
- Technical side
- Market side
- Regulatory side
- Global Benchmarking Framework
- Path to implementation of main jurisdictions
- Future Outlook
- Technology: Interoperable ZK Solution
- Scenario: The integration and development of stablecoins and RWA in a multi-chain network
- Crossover: A Multi-Chain Intelligent Service Ecosystem Driven by AI Agents
- Key Points Structure Diagram
- References
Structured classification method for the blockchain interoperability track
The coexistence of multiple chains, the proliferation of Layer 2 infrastructure, and the differentiation of institutional and user needs are continuously pushing liquidity, state, and user access points towards cross-blockchain collaboration. Capital and traffic are migrating rapidly between multiple chains, development and integration costs are constantly spilling over to upstream infrastructure, and security incidents and compliance pressures require clear trust boundaries and auditable paths. Relying solely on "project stories" is insufficient for a systematic analysis of projects. To establish a set of alignable analytical coordinates, this chapter proposes the following analytical framework. First, we examine the feasible boundaries based on the "underlying transaction model." This dimension helps us determine: whether a certain type of solution is naturally compatible with the mainstream ecosystem, what the integration costs and migration difficulties are, what the engineering ceilings for concurrency and determinism are, and how these characteristics will be reflected in developer adoption, ecosystem spillover, and long-term competitive advantages. Secondly, considering the actual needs based on "application scenarios," cross-chain requirements are always driven by business needs. Starting from the chain layers, there are generally Layer 1 mainnet(hereinafter referred to as L1) and Layer 2 scaling solutions (hereinafter referred to as L2) . Therefore, we break down the interactions into three categories: L1↔L1, L1↔L2, and L2↔L2 , to facilitate the differentiation of different types such as settlement-type, scaling-inherent-type, or high-frequency routing-type. Finally, considering value capture based on "architectural layers," we refer to the network layering concept and divide the track into three categories: the basic layer, the abstract layer, and the application layer . This helps determine whether the project's value is deposited in the "protocol foundation," the "abstract middleware," or the "traffic front-end."
The basis of state transitions: classification by underlying transaction model
A blockchain is essentially a deterministic state machine. Its state transition mechanism (i.e., transaction model) forms the foundational layer of the system architecture, directly determining the design paradigm and implementation path of interoperability protocols. Currently, the blockchain ecosystem primarily employs three core transaction models: the UTXO model based on unspent transaction outputs, the Account model based on account balances, and the Object model based on resource objects. These models differ in aspects such as state representation, concurrent execution, data consistency guarantees, and inter-chain operation compatibility. A detailed analysis of these three models follows.
