从跨链桥继承而来的Layer2资产是否能够避免风险?

深潮TechFlowPublicado a 2022-08-26Actualizado a 2022-08-26

Resumen

DeFi 用户最常见的问题之一是 ,"如果跨链桥被黑,而我却在目标链上收到了我的代币,我会面临风险吗?"。

DeFi 用户最常见的问题之一是 ,"如果跨链桥被黑,而我却在目标链上收到了我的代币,我会面临风险吗?"。回答这个问题出乎意料得难,但重要的是,我们要把它的本质弄清楚。

我将通过一些例子来介绍三个重要的架构概念——消息桥、代币桥和流动性网络。首先让我们举一个最简单的例子——你想把 $MKR 转移到 Optimism,于是你使用他们的 "标准 "跨链桥。

在后台发生的事情是,你的 MKR 代币被锁定在 L1 代币桥的托管中,在 L2 上铸造相同数量(希望)的代币。

你可以查看 ERC 跨链桥中持有的 MKR 的数量和 Optimism 上铸造 MKR 的数量。

L2 上的 MKR 数量比托管的数量略少,很可能有些数量是 "在跨链途中",正在被提取。不过,看到托管中的数量多于铸币的数量,还是令人放心的。

如果 L1 上的托管被黑客攻击,或者由于错误,在 L1 上铸造的$MKR 比托管的多,你在 L2 上的$MKR 可能一文不值。因此,只要在 Optimism 上持有$MKR,你就会面临它所使用的代币桥和消息桥的风险。

那么,为什么我们要区分代币桥和消息桥呢?因为你可以有许多不同的代币桥使用同一个信息桥,就像 Optimism 上的 $MKR、 $SNX 和 $DAI 一样。

持有这些资产,你将面临信息传递桥风险以及各自的代币桥风险(例如,$DAI 和 $MKR 的风险是不同的)。

那如果你使用非标准的 "跨链桥 "(例如 HopProtocol)将资产转移到 Optimism 会怎样?其实这就是我说的流动性网络(即使它在用户界面上表现为跨链桥),这是什么意思?

流动性网络不会在目标链上铸造代币,他们会先预先铸造资产,然后用这些资产将与你进行交换。因此,对你来说,结果是一样的,但基础机制是非常不同的。

流动性网络可能会耗尽流动性,因此你的请求(无论是存款还是提款)可能无法得到满足,他们显然也会引入额外的执行风险。

一旦你的资金还处在 "跨链中",你将与流动性网络一同面临风险。一旦你收到你的资产,你将 "只 "面临与你持有的资产有关的标准 "代币桥 "风险。

代币桥的风险是很容易检查的,因此在 L2 上持有通过代币桥跨链资产的你,一旦你的资产脱离流通,就不会面临与流动性网络有关的风险。

如果您在 L2 上持有使用流动性网络桥接的资产,你怎么知道你面临的是哪种代币桥接风险?不幸的是,这不容易检查。

但有些跨链桥是代币桥和流动性网络的结合体,这使得用户在正确区分这些功能时有些困惑。再举个例子,使用 Multichain 将 $DAI 从以太坊转移到 Fantom。

将 $DAI 桥接到 Fantom,你将得到一个 "mDAI",即 $DAI 暴露在他们的信息桥风险和他们的代币桥风险之中。但 Multichain 也是一个跨链的流动性网络,相当复杂,横跨数十个区块链和数百个代币。因此,实际上你的资产是这样的:

你可以检查一下,在 Fantom 上铸造的 $DAI 明显多于在 ETH 代币跨链桥的储备。

这一切听起来都非常复杂和混乱,但它确实是这样的,而且为用户提供的用户界面试图使这一切看起来非常简单。但是,这些风险应该被资产持有人理解,并得到适当的管理。所以,如果我们能够创建 "从以太坊继承安全 "的信息跨链桥,并在其上构建不可升级的且无错误的代币跨链桥,那么你在 L2 的资产才能跟在 ETH 上一样安全。

Lecturas Relacionadas

Jensen Huang: Prompts are Becoming Obsolete, Loops are the New Paradigm

Jensen Huang, alongside AI leaders like Peter Norvig, Boris Cherny, and Andrew Ng, is advocating for a shift from "prompt engineering" to "loop engineering" as the new paradigm for AI development. Instead of manually crafting individual prompts, the focus is now on designing autonomous loops—systems where AI agents execute tasks, self-validate results, and iterate until completion without constant human oversight. A loop is a management framework that enables agents to operate independently. Key implementations are seen in Claude Code (with features like /loop, /goal, and /schedule) and OpenAI Codex, which employ multiple agents working in parallel within isolated environments. A core principle is the separation of roles: one agent (or model) performs the task, while an independent agent (or a smaller, separate model) validates the output to ensure objectivity. The article outlines a practical roadmap for implementing loops, starting with a "four-condition test" to assess suitability, building a minimal viable loop, and emphasizing critical pitfalls to avoid, such as lacking hard stop conditions or allowing loops to handle tasks requiring human judgment. This evolution is framed as the fourth major shift in AI interaction: from Prompt Engineering (crafting instructions) to Context Engineering (providing background information), then to Harness Engineering (building tool-enabled environments), and finally to Loop Engineering (creating self-sustaining systems). This progression reflects a consistent trend of increasing abstraction, moving human involvement from direct instruction to system design and rule-setting. The concept has academic roots in frameworks like ReAct, which formalized the "reason-act-observe" cycle. While loop engineering promises greater automation, experts caution about managing token costs and warn against outsourcing understanding—AI can assist, but deep problem comprehension remains essential.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Jensen Huang: Prompts are Becoming Obsolete, Loops are the New Paradigm

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

GPT Designs GPT

OpenAI has unveiled its first custom AI chip, Jalapeño, a move signaling a strategic shift beyond being a mere model company. While many see it as a challenge to NVIDIA, its core aim is to control the entire intelligent production pipeline—from models and chips to data centers and energy. The key driver is the evolving competitive landscape: model advantages are shrinking, while the computational gap in areas like cost-per-token, system throughput, and energy efficiency is becoming the true long-term barrier. Jalapeño is primarily an inference chip, targeting the massive and growing "inference tax"—the daily operational cost of generating tokens for services like ChatGPT and APIs. By designing its own hardware optimized for its specific workloads and future product roadmaps (even using AI to aid the chip design process), OpenAI aims to drastically reduce token generation costs and improve system efficiency. This creates a potential flywheel: better models help design better chips, which lower costs for running next-generation models, supporting more users and products, which in turn provides more data to refine future chips. The strategy mirrors Apple’s integrated approach, building a closed loop where hardware, software, and applications are co-optimized. In the long term, OpenAI is not trying to become the next NVIDIA (a supplier of "shovels" to all AI companies) but to own and operate the entire "mine"—selling the end product of intelligence itself. This move marks OpenAI's ambition to evolve from creating the smartest models to controlling the foundational infrastructure of AI production.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

GPT Designs GPT

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片