Non-Custodial Cross-Chain Swaps | How to Spot the Gaps.
A cross-chain swap is only genuinely non-custodial when no third party takes control of assets during the move. In practice, custody risk creeps back in through three places, reserve contracts, validator layers, and wrapped destination assets.
Reserve-based bridges lock the original asset and issue a wrapped version on the other side. That wrapped token depends entirely on the solvency of the contract holding the original. A custody structure exists behind the scenes even when the user sees a token in the wallet.
Validator layers can concentrate control even when the interface looks decentralized. Ronin was drained after attackers obtained five validator approvals. Harmony Horizon fell through a 2-of-5 multisig. Same lesson, if a small set of keys controls the outcome, the route carries custody risk regardless of what the product says.
HTLC-based routes change the structure. Both sides lock under the same secret condition and deadline, reveal the secret in time and both sides settle, miss the deadline and both sides refund automatically. Omniston makes this practical through resolvers competing via RFQ, with no pooled reserves or wrapped assets in the middle.
Five questions before trusting any cross-chain route:
> Can one contract or multisig freeze or drain the locked funds?
> If the swap fails, do funds return automatically?
> Do you receive the native destination asset or a wrapped version?
> Who controls message delivery or settlement authorization?
> Has the route changed since its last audit?
– Read the Full Article : https://blog.ston.fi/non-custodial-cross-chain-swaps-what-they-mean-and-how-to-spot-the-gaps/
– Try Cross-Chain Swaps on STONfi : app.ston.fi
$BTC $ETH #TON #Meme Alpha# #DeFi
A cross-chain swap is only genuinely non-custodial when no third party takes control of assets during the move. In practice, custody risk creeps back in through three places, reserve contracts, validator layers, and wrapped destination assets.
Reserve-based bridges lock the original asset and issue a wrapped version on the other side. That wrapped token depends entirely on the solvency of the contract holding the original. A custody structure exists behind the scenes even when the user sees a token in the wallet.
Validator layers can concentrate control even when the interface looks decentralized. Ronin was drained after attackers obtained five validator approvals. Harmony Horizon fell through a 2-of-5 multisig. Same lesson, if a small set of keys controls the outcome, the route carries custody risk regardless of what the product says.
HTLC-based routes change the structure. Both sides lock under the same secret condition and deadline, reveal the secret in time and both sides settle, miss the deadline and both sides refund automatically. Omniston makes this practical through resolvers competing via RFQ, with no pooled reserves or wrapped assets in the middle.
Five questions before trusting any cross-chain route:
> Can one contract or multisig freeze or drain the locked funds?
> If the swap fails, do funds return automatically?
> Do you receive the native destination asset or a wrapped version?
> Who controls message delivery or settlement authorization?
> Has the route changed since its last audit?
– Read the Full Article : https://blog.ston.fi/non-custodial-cross-chain-swaps-what-they-mean-and-how-to-spot-the-gaps/
– Try Cross-Chain Swaps on STONfi : app.ston.fi
$BTC $ETH #TON #Meme Alpha# #DeFi