Zero slippage cross chain transfers sound like a marketing phrase until you actually look at what mechanism makes that possible.
The Cross Chain Token standard uses a burn mint model specifically tokens get burned on the source chain minted fresh on the destination chain rather than pulled from a liquidity pool sitting between the two.
Here's the cost that model removes. Traditional cross chain transfers through liquidity pools carry slippage risk baked in pool depth affects the actual price you get and thin pools mean expensive transfers precisely when you need to move value most.
Who was paying that cost before anyone moving tokens cross chain through pool dependent methods silently as a spread most people don't notice until they're moving meaningful size.
Burn mint removes that dependency entirely. Not cheaper liquidity. No liquidity dependency to begin with.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK
$VELVET
#dusk $TAKE
What would you choose for a large cross chain transfer?
The Cross Chain Token standard uses a burn mint model specifically tokens get burned on the source chain minted fresh on the destination chain rather than pulled from a liquidity pool sitting between the two.
Here's the cost that model removes. Traditional cross chain transfers through liquidity pools carry slippage risk baked in pool depth affects the actual price you get and thin pools mean expensive transfers precisely when you need to move value most.
Who was paying that cost before anyone moving tokens cross chain through pool dependent methods silently as a spread most people don't notice until they're moving meaningful size.
Burn mint removes that dependency entirely. Not cheaper liquidity. No liquidity dependency to begin with.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK
$VELVET
#dusk $TAKE
What would you choose for a large cross chain transfer?
Zero slippage burn/mint
50%
Deep liquidity bridge
0%
Depends on the chain
0%
I'd split the transaction
50%
2 Stimmen • Abstimmung beendet