Rollup-specific VMs fragment state. Each major L2—Arbitrum Nitro, Optimism Bedrock, zkSync Era—implements a custom virtual machine. This creates incompatible execution environments that cannot directly read or write to each other's state.
cross-chain-future-bridges-and-interoperability
Blog
Why Rollup-Specific VMs Complicate Direct Communication
The strategic push for custom VMs (Arbitrum Stylus, zkSync Era) creates a fundamental fragmentation layer, turning the promised seamless multi-rollup future into a new interoperability nightmare for developers and users.
introduction
THE FRAGMENTATION
Introduction
Rollup-specific VMs create isolated execution environments that break the composability promise of a unified Ethereum.
Direct communication is impossible. A smart contract on Arbitrum cannot natively call a function on Optimism. This forces all cross-rollup activity through trusted bridging layers like Across or Stargate, introducing latency, cost, and security assumptions.
The EVM is a standard, not a mandate. While rollups use EVM-equivalent semantics for developer familiarity, their underlying proving systems (WASM, zkEVM, MIPS) are optimized for performance, sacrificing native interoperability for scalability gains.
Evidence: Over $30B in TVL is locked in these siloed environments. Projects like Chainlink's CCIP and LayerZero emerge not as luxuries, but as necessary infrastructure to re-stitch the fragmented landscape created by VM divergence.
key-trends
WHY ROLLUP-SPECIFIC VMS COMPLICATE DIRECT COMMUNICATION
The Great VM Fragmentation: Three Core Trends
The proliferation of specialized execution environments has shattered the universal state machine model, creating a multi-VM landscape where direct, trustless communication is impossible.
01
The Problem: No Universal Opcode Set
EVM, SVM, and Move VM have fundamentally different instruction sets and state models. A smart contract on one cannot execute natively on another, forcing all cross-VM communication into a slow, expensive, and trust-dependent translation layer.
- EVM uses 256-bit words and a global state trie.
- SVM uses a register-based model and parallel execution.
- Move VM uses a linear type system and resource-oriented programming.
0
Native Calls
~2-10s
Bridge Latency
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Abstraction (UniswapX, Across)
Instead of forcing VMs to talk, let users declare what they want. Solvers compete to fulfill cross-chain intents, abstracting away the underlying VM fragmentation. This shifts complexity from the protocol layer to a competitive marketplace.
- User declares: "Swap 1 ETH on Arbitrum for SOL on Solana."
- Solvers compete to find the optimal route across fragmented liquidity and VMs.
- Protocols like CowSwap aggregate this intent flow to improve pricing.
-90%
User Complexity
$1B+
Solver Volume
03
The Problem: Incompatible State Proofs
Each VM produces proofs in its own native format (e.g., Merkle-Patricia for EVM, Sealevel for SVM). A light client or bridge on one chain cannot natively verify the state of another, creating a massive verification overhead and security fragmentation.
- Ethereum L1 cannot verify a Solana state proof without a custom precompile.
- LayerZero and other omnichain protocols must run separate verifier modules for each VM.
- This leads to trusted relayers or massive gas costs for on-chain verification.
10-100x
Gas Cost
Multiple
Trust Assumptions
04
The Solution: Universal Proof Aggregation (Succinct, RISC Zero)
Use a universal proof system (like zkVMs or RISC Zero) to generate a single, canonical proof that can be verified on any chain. This creates a common language for state verification across all VMs.
- Succinct's SP1 compiles different VMs to a shared RISC-V target.
- RISC Zero generates STARK proofs for any program execution.
- A single proof can attest to state changes across EVM, SVM, and Move rollups.
1 Proof
Many Chains
Trustless
Verification
05
The Problem: Fragmented Liquidity Silos
Capital and applications are trapped within their native VM ecosystem. An NFT minted on Solana cannot be used as collateral in an EVM DeFi protocol without a wrapped, custodial representation. This reduces capital efficiency and composability by orders of magnitude.
- Solana DeFi TVL (~$4B) is isolated from Ethereum L2 TVL (~$40B).
- Wrapped assets introduce bridge risk and destroy native functionality.
- Projects like Aptos DeFi cannot leverage Ethereum's deep liquidity pools.
$40B+
Siloed TVL
High
Bridge Risk
06
The Solution: Native Asset Teleportation (Circle CCTP, Wormhole)
Burn-and-mint bridges and canonical token standards allow assets to move natively between VMs without wrapping. The asset maintains a single canonical ledger, with minting rights controlled by attestations from the source chain.
- Circle's CCTP enables native USDC movement via attested burn/mint.
- Wormhole's Token Router standardizes this for any asset.
- This eliminates bridge custodial risk and preserves the asset's native properties across VMs.
$10B+
Transferred
0
Wrapped Supply
deep-dive
THE INTEROPERABILITY FRACTURE
From EVM Equivalence to VM Anarchy
The proliferation of non-EVM rollup VMs fragments liquidity and breaks composability, creating a multi-chain future that is harder to navigate than the present.
EVM equivalence created a standard that enabled seamless communication and tooling portability across chains like Arbitrum and Optimism. This shared execution environment allowed protocols like Uniswap and Aave to deploy once and function everywhere, creating a unified liquidity and developer ecosystem.
Rollup-specific VMs introduce fragmentation. Starknet's Cairo VM and Fuel's FuelVM operate on different state models and instruction sets. This VM anarchy breaks direct contract calls and shared tooling, forcing every new ecosystem to rebuild its own infrastructure from scratch.
The interoperability burden shifts to users. Instead of native composability, users now rely on complex, trust-minimized bridges like Across and layerzero to move assets. This adds latency, cost, and security assumptions to every cross-VM interaction, undermining the seamless user experience rollups promised.
Evidence: The stark contrast in TVL and developer activity between EVM L2s and non-EVM alternatives like Starknet demonstrates the network effects of a shared VM. The industry is now building abstraction layers like Polygon AggLayer to paper over this fragmentation, proving the problem is real.
ROLLUP VM FRAGMENTATION
The Interoperability Tax: A Comparative Analysis
Comparing the technical overhead and latency of cross-rollup communication methods, highlighting the cost of incompatible virtual machines.
| Interoperability Feature | Homogeneous VMs (e.g., EVM L2s) | Heterogeneous VMs (e.g., SVM, Move, WASM) | Direct Native Bridge |
|---|---|---|---|
State Proof Verification | Direct EVM opcode execution | Custom on-chain light client or ZK proof verifier | Validator signature verification |
Message Latency (Optimistic) | ~1 hour (challenge period) | ~1 hour + proof generation time (5-20 min) | ~10-30 minutes |
Message Latency (ZK) | ~10 minutes (proof generation) | ~10-20 minutes (proof generation + translation) | N/A |
Gas Cost for Verification | 50k - 200k gas | 200k - 2M+ gas (circuit-specific) | 50k - 150k gas |
Requires Custom Messaging Layer | |||
Architectural Dependency | Ethereum L1 | Interop Protocol (e.g., LayerZero, Wormhole, Axelar) | Native Bridge Contract |
Security Assumption | Ethereum L1 security | Additional validator set / light client security | Bridge validator multisig security |
Example Implementation | Arbitrum Nitro <-> Optimism | Solana <-> Ethereum via Wormhole | Arbitrum One <-> Ethereum |
counter-argument
THE INTEROPERABILITY TRAP
The Bull Case for Custom VMs (And Why It's Short-Sighted)
Rollup-specific virtual machines optimize for performance at the cost of creating isolated execution silos.
Custom VMs enable deep optimization. A rollup like Arbitrum Nitro or zkSync Era designs its VM to maximize throughput and minimize gas costs for specific transaction types, creating a superior user experience within its own walled garden.
This creates a communication chasm. Direct contract calls between a Starknet app (Cairo VM) and an Optimism app (EVM) are impossible. Every cross-chain interaction must route through a slow, expensive, and insecure bridging protocol like LayerZero or Axelar.
The ecosystem fragments. Developers must deploy and maintain separate codebases for each VM environment. This increases overhead and stifles composability, the core innovation that made DeFi on Ethereum possible.
Evidence: The total value locked in cross-chain bridges exceeds $20B, a direct market response to this fragmentation. Protocols like Chainlink CCIP and Wormhole exist primarily to solve a problem that homogeneous execution would not create.
protocol-spotlight
THE INTEROPERABILITY LAYER
Architectural Responses: Who's Building the Babel Fish?
Rollup-specific VMs create isolated execution environments, making direct contract calls impossible and forcing a new class of infrastructure.
01
The Problem: Stateful Incompatibility
A contract on Arbitrum's AVM cannot natively read or write to a contract on Optimism's OVM. This breaks composability, the core innovation of DeFi.\n- Result: Fragmented liquidity and user experience.\n- Example: A lending protocol on Arbitrum cannot use an Optimism oracle without a bridge.
10+
Major VMs
$B+
Locked Per Chain
02
The Solution: Universal Message Passing
Protocols like LayerZero, Wormhole, and Axelar act as transport layers, abstracting away VM differences. They provide a generalized framework for sending arbitrary data and value.\n- Mechanism: Relayer/Oracle networks attest to message validity across chains.\n- Trade-off: Introduces new trust assumptions and latency (~1-5 min).
50+
Chains Supported
~$1B
Message Volume
03
The Solution: Intent-Based Coordination
Systems like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across use a solver network to fulfill user intents across rollups. The user declares a desired outcome, not a specific path.\n- Benefit: Optimizes for cost and speed by finding the best route dynamically.\n- Core Innovation: Moves complexity from the user/client to a competitive solver market.
-90%
Failed Txs
~30s
Avg. Fill Time
04
The Solution: Shared Settlement & DA
Rollups like those built with Eclipse or Celestia + Rollkit standardize on a common settlement layer and data availability source. This creates a homogeneous foundation for interoperability.\n- Benefit: Enables native, trust-minimized bridging between rollups sharing the same stack.\n- Vision: Turns the multi-VM problem into a single, shared-state problem.
~10ms
State Proofs
100x
Cheaper DA
05
The Problem: Latency Arbitrage
Asynchronous communication between rollups (e.g., a 10-minute optimistic challenge window) creates exploitable time windows. This makes synchronous composability—vital for DeFi—impossible without new security models.\n- Attack Vector: MEV bots can front-run cross-chain settlements.\n- Consequence: Forces protocols to implement complex economic security (bonds, slashing).
10 min
Challenge Window
$M+
Risk Window
06
The Future: Hyperbridges & Aggregation
Projects like Chainlink CCIP and Polygon AggLayer are building meta-protocols that aggregate existing bridges. They provide a single canonical route, improving security and liquidity.\n- Mechanism: Uses a decentralized oracle network to attest to the validity of other bridges' proofs.\n- Goal: Create a unified security standard, reducing bridge fragmentation risk.
>12
Bridge Hacks '24
$2B+
Insured Value
takeaways
THE INTEROPERABILITY TRAP
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
Rollup-specific VMs create walled gardens, fragmenting liquidity and user experience. This is the core bottleneck for a unified L2 ecosystem.
01
The Cross-Chain Fragmentation Tax
Every unique VM (Arbitrum Nitro, zkSync's zkEVM, Starknet's Cairo) requires custom, audited message-passing bridges. This isn't just technical debt—it's a direct tax on capital efficiency and developer velocity.\n- Cost: Adds ~$500k+ in security audit overhead per bridge connection.\n- Latency: Introduces 12-24 hour withdrawal delays for native assets, locking $10B+ TVL.
$500k+
Audit Cost
12-24h
Delay
02
Universal VM as the Rosetta Stone
A single, standardized execution layer (like the EVM or a WASM-based VM) is the only path to seamless composability. It turns custom bridge engineering into a solved protocol-level primitive.\n- Ecosystem Effect: Enables native, trust-minimized calls between apps on Arbitrum, Optimism, and Polygon zkEVM.\n- Builder Win: Developers write once, deploy to any rollup with zero bridge integration overhead.
1
Standard
0
Custom Bridges
03
The Arbitrary State Problem
Non-EVM VMs (Cairo, Move, FuelVM) serialize state in proprietary formats. A message from Starknet is meaningless to Arbitrum without a complex, slow, and expensive translation layer.\n- Data Incompatibility: Forces reliance on third-party LayerZero or Axelar for generic messaging, adding centralization vectors.\n- Innovation Penalty: Niche VM optimizations are offset by isolation from the dominant EVM liquidity pool and tooling.
100%
Custom Format
3rd Party
Dependency
04
Follow the Liquidity: The UniswapX Precedent
Intent-based architectures abstract away the VM entirely. UniswapX and CowSwap don't bridge assets; they route intents to the best executor across chains, making the underlying VM irrelevant for the user.\n- Paradigm Shift: Moves the interoperability problem from the protocol layer to the solver network (Across, SUAVE).\n- Investor Signal: The market is voting for abstraction. Projects optimizing for isolated VM performance are building a moat in a desert.
Intent-Based
Architecture
VM-Agnostic
Execution
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall