数据对比跨链桥交易,哪个桥最便宜?

Odaily星球日报Publicado a 2024-06-04Actualizado a 2024-06-04

Resumen

无论如何,用户在这些“跨链桥之争”中是最终的赢家。

作者:Hart Lambur

编译:深潮 TechFlow

结论

对于普通的 L2 到 L2 转账,@AcrossProtocol 明显是最快且最便宜的跨链桥。对于普通的 ETH 到 L2 的转账,Across 比 Stargate 的快速桥要快得多且便宜得多,Across 与 Stargate 的慢速桥在费用上基本持平(但 Across 快了整整 20 倍)。对于普通的 L2 到 ETH 转账,Across 比 Stargate 的快速选项要快得多且便宜,虽然比 Stargate 的慢速选项稍贵,但 Across 快了整整 100 倍。

分析

在过去几天里,@PrimoridalAA 指责我在比较我们的跨链桥时挑选有利数据。我认为对此最好的回应是开发一种方法来解释“更便宜”的含义,然后看看谁赢了。

我的方法是:对于普通桥接交易,哪个桥最便宜?由于L2到L2、ETH 到L2、L2到 ETH 的交易规模和费用差异很大,我将分别研究这些情况。对于选择哪些 L2,我建议我们看三个最大的:Arbitrum(Arb)、Base、Optimism(OP)。

以下是过去 30 天滚动平均的L2到L2桥接交易规模,使用 Across 和 Stargate 数据进行测量:

数据对比跨链桥交易,哪个桥最便宜?

L2 到 L2 的两种桥接平均交易规模约为 55 美元,或约 0.015 ETH。(注意平均规模有下降趋势;稍后会详细讨论)。

很好,那么哪种桥接在L2之间移动 0.015 ETH 时更便宜呢?这应该能回答“哪个桥接在L2之间的普通桥接交易中更便宜”。

答案是:无论在哪种L2之间转移 0.015 ETH,Across 都比 Stargate 便宜且快。

我刚刚将 0.015 ETH 从 Base 桥接到 OP。结果如下:

Across 耗时 4 秒,费用 1.1 美分。

Stargate“快速”耗时 50 秒,费用 5.6 美分。

Stargate“便宜”耗时 1 分 2 秒,费用 3.0 美分。

我相信我肯定会被指责挑选了 Base 到 OP,但老实说,去查任何 0.015 ETH 的路线就知道,Across 明显更便宜,而且在任何L2到L2的情况下肯定更快!这一点毫无疑问。

结论:Across 显然是普通L2到L2交易中最快且最便宜的跨链桥。

接下来,让我们看一下 ETH 到 L2 的数据。

以下是三个最大的 L2 的 30 天滚动平均 ETH 到 L2 交易规模,使用 Across 和 Stargate 数据进行测量:

数据对比跨链桥交易,哪个桥最便宜?

Eth 到 [Arb, Base, OP] 的平均交易规模为 Across 的 ~ 100 美元和 Stargate 的 ~ 400 美元。让我们取平均值为 250 美元,或 ~ 0.06 ETH。

现在让我们将 0.06 ETH 从 ETH 桥接到 OP。

结果:

Across 花了 28 秒,成本为 2.6 美分。

Stargate“快速”需要 4 分钟,成本为 5.5 美分。

Stargate“便宜”需要 9 分 40 秒,成本为 2.2 美分。

Across 比 Stargate 的快速选项便宜得多,速度也快得多。

与 Across 的廉价选项相比,Stargate 是 2.2 美分,而 Across 是 2.6 美分,但 Across 需要 28 秒,而 Stargate 的需要 9 分 40 秒。

至于这种成本差异是否值得速度上的差异,我将留给市场来决定。同样,您也可以自己尝试一下。

最后,让我们看一下 L2 到 ETH 的数据。

以下是三个最大的 L2 的 30 天滚动平均 L2 到 ETH 交易规模,使用 Across 和 Stargate 数据进行测量:

数据对比跨链桥交易,哪个桥最便宜?

Across 到 ETH 的平均 [Arb, Base, OP] 交易规模为 ~ 700 美元,Stargate 为 ~ 200 美元。让我们取平均值为 450 美元,或 ~ 0.06 ETH。

现在让我们将 0.06 ETH 从 ETH 桥接到 OP。 结果:

Across 花了 4 秒,成本 5.41 美元。

Stargate“快速”耗时 2 分 12 秒,成本 16.80 美元。

Stargate“便宜”花了 6 分 34 秒,成本为 4.41 美元。

同样,Across 在速度和成本方面都主导了 Stargate 的快速选择。

Stargate 的慢速选项稍微便宜一些,但需要 6 分 34 秒,而 Across 只需 4 秒。

跨链桥之争会走向何方?

个人认为,随着下一个十亿人进入加密货币领域,他们将(1)几乎完全使用 L2(或 alt-L1),以及(2)交易规模会继续缩小。Across 已经是 L2 传输中最便宜、最快的桥接器,随着传输规模变小,Across 基于意图的架构将继续占据主导地位。

Stargate 的“慢速”选项在与以太坊主网交易时可以节省一些成本,但速度上的妥协非常明显。我认为是否值得为了节省边际成本而牺牲速度,应该由市场来决定。

无论如何,用户在这些“跨链桥之争”中是最终的赢家,我相信加密推特用户至少对我和我兄弟 Bryan 之间的争论略感兴趣。

Lecturas Relacionadas

Just Now, Anthropic Unveils Physical MCP: Claude Begins Controlling the Real World

Anthropic has announced the Model Hardware Standard (MHS), a new standard enabling AI agents like Claude to safely control physical devices. Building on the Model Context Protocol (MCP), MHS standardizes communication between AI agents and hardware such as microscopes, robotic arms, and lasers, marking a significant step for AI from the digital into the physical world. Developed in collaboration with HHMI Janelia Research Campus, MHS uses standardized drivers to translate basic commands (e.g., read, write) into a format any programmable device can understand. This drastically reduces integration time from weeks to hours or minutes and allows agents to discover and operate new devices using natural language tags that describe machine properties and safety limits. Agents can control devices via MCP, command-line interfaces, or APIs. They can sequence operations, monitor results, adjust parameters in real-time, and generate deterministic scripts for long-running tasks. Early tests show Claude interacting with hardware exploratively, like a scientist, learning to calibrate a laser and scripting the process. Early adopters and partners include AWS, Automata, Danaher, Doosan Robotics, and Tecan, who are integrating MHS support into their platforms. While promising, challenges remain: Claude's physical reasoning is limited, requiring expert oversight, and MHS currently only works with programmable hardware. Anthropic plans further refinements and broader device support before open-sourcing the standard.

marsbitHace 2 min(s)

Just Now, Anthropic Unveils Physical MCP: Claude Begins Controlling the Real World

marsbitHace 2 min(s)

History's Only Asset with a 100% Win Rate After 4 Years of Holding

**Title: The Only Asset with a 100% Win Rate Over Any 4-Year Holding Period** This article analyzes which major, freely-tradable assets have historically never produced a nominal loss over any rolling 4-year holding window. It concludes that only two distinct categories achieve this: ultra-low-risk contractual assets and Bitcoin. Among traditional risk assets, none maintain a perfect 4-year record. The S&P 500 had negative 4-year periods (e.g., 1929-1932: -64.8%). The Nasdaq 100 fell roughly 60% from 2000-2003. Gold saw a ~47.7% loss from 1981-1984. US real estate declined about 23.3% from 2007-2010. Even long-term US Treasury bonds (e.g., 2021-2024: -19.8%) and corporate bonds can produce 4-year losses due to interest rate and market price risks. In contrast, the first category achieving 100% nominal success includes assets like rolling 3-month US Treasury Bills, 4-year certificates of deposit (CDs), and US Treasuries held to maturity within 4 years. Their "guarantee" stems from contractual obligations and credit backing (e.g., FDIC insurance, US sovereign promise), not price appreciation. The sole exception in the high-risk category is Bitcoin. Analysis of daily data from 2010-2026 across 4,419 rolling 4-year windows shows a 100% positive return rate. The worst 4-year period (April 2021 to April 2025) still yielded a +32.6% total return (~7.3% CAGR). This record is unique because Bitcoin has no issuer, promises no cash flows, and has endured severe drawdowns (70-90%), yet its market price has always recovered within a 4-year span. The key distinction is the source of the "100%": contractual assets offer known, low nominal returns, while Bitcoin's record stems purely from historical price appreciation despite extreme volatility. The article suggests that for Bitcoin, the ability to hold for 4+ years is more critical than active trading strategies.

marsbitHace 9 min(s)

History's Only Asset with a 100% Win Rate After 4 Years of Holding

marsbitHace 9 min(s)

How One Article Moved 45 Billion: The Collapse of a 25-Year-Old 'AI Stock Guru'

This article details the dramatic rise and near-collapse of a hedge fund built by Leopold Aschenbrenner, a 24-year-old former OpenAI researcher. The fund, named Situational Awareness, amassed $45 billion in assets within two years. Its explosive growth stemmed from Aschenbrenner's influential 165-page manifesto predicting AGI's arrival by 2027 and his high-profile Silicon Valley connections. The fund employed an extremely aggressive strategy: high concentration and 400% leverage to bet long on AI infrastructure stocks while shorting legacy software firms. In July, this structure backfired when both sides of the trade reversed simultaneously—AI stocks plunged while shorted stocks rallied—triggering massive losses that nearly wiped out all equity. Major player Jane Street reportedly lost billions. The fund's leveraged public portfolio was ultimately sold at a discount to Citadel. The SEC is now investigating banks like Goldman Sachs for their role in facilitating the fund's high-leverage trades. The article compares this to past blow-ups like Archegos, highlighting systemic failures in risk management where the pursuit of short-term profits overrode due diligence. It questions whether such risky leverage concentrated in the AI sector, currently at record highs, poses a broader systemic threat. Ironically, Aschenbrenner, who studied AI safety at OpenAI, designed a fund structure prone to uncontrolled failure. Days after the crisis, he reportedly raised another $400 million for new investments.

marsbitHace 24 min(s)

How One Article Moved 45 Billion: The Collapse of a 25-Year-Old 'AI Stock Guru'

marsbitHace 24 min(s)

AI Accelerates Everything: Mathematics's Line of Defense Has Fallen, Physics is Already in AI's Crosshairs

This summer, the mathematics community was shaken as OpenAI's Astra model reportedly solved 10 long-standing open problems, and Claude Fable 5 found a potential counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture. This was followed by a major shift in physics: renowned physicist Gavin E. Crooks presented an open problem in stochastic thermodynamics to Claude, which the AI solved completely in days—a task that might take a skilled graduate student months. The problem concerned constraints on entropy production statistics under the Detailed Fluctuation Theorem (DFT), a core concept in non-equilibrium physics. Claude provided a unifying geometric answer: all possible DFT-compatible distributions correspond to a convex "moment body." Its key insight was that for a fixed "gap," the distribution is uniquely determined, making any general DFT distribution a mixture of these basic two-outcome distributions. This structure implies that for given lower-order moments, the nth moment only has a sharp lower bound, with no upper bound. Claude demonstrated that numerous previously published bounds on entropy production are merely low-dimensional projections or "shadows" of this single, unified convex body. The AI-authored paper offers a complete hierarchical characterization of the moment constraints. This case signifies a potential paradigm shift: AI is progressing from solving known problems to aiding in the exploration of fundamental, unsolved scientific questions, heralding an AI-accelerated era for physics.

marsbitHace 24 min(s)

AI Accelerates Everything: Mathematics's Line of Defense Has Fallen, Physics is Already in AI's Crosshairs

marsbitHace 24 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片