Oracles are a security liability. They introduce a centralized point of failure for DeFi protocols, as seen in the $325M Wormhole hack. Their core function—providing external price data—is a workaround for the lack of native, atomic asset movement.
layer-2-wars-arbitrum-optimism-base-and-beyond
Blog
Why Atomic Cross-Rollup Transactions Will Make Oracles Obsolete
Oracles are a centralized bottleneck. This post argues that native atomic state verification between L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism will render them unnecessary for a majority of DeFi use cases, fundamentally reshaping cross-chain architecture.
introduction
THE ORACLE PROBLEM
Introduction
Atomic cross-rollup transactions will eliminate the need for external price oracles by enabling direct, trust-minimized asset exchange between rollups.
Cross-rollup atomicity is the solution. Protocols like Across and Stargate demonstrate that messages and value can move between chains with strong guarantees. Extending this atomicity to rollup state transitions allows two assets to be swapped without relying on an external price feed.
This makes oracles redundant for swaps. A user on Arbitrum can atomically exchange ETH for Optimism's OP token. The execution is validated by the underlying L1 (Ethereum), creating a cryptoeconomic truth superior to any oracle's signed data feed.
Evidence: The 2024 Dencun upgrade reduced L2 data costs by ~90%, making the frequent, small state proofs required for atomic cross-rollup transactions economically viable for the first time.
thesis-statement
THE ORACLE OBSOLESCENCE
The Core Argument: Trust Minimization Through Native Verification
Atomic cross-rollup transactions eliminate the trusted third-party data feed, making oracles a legacy security model.
Oracles are a security liability. They introduce a centralized point of failure and trust into decentralized systems, as seen in the Chainlink and Pyth network architectures. Native verification uses the underlying blockchain's consensus to prove state, removing this external dependency.
Atomic execution is the mechanism. A transaction either completes across all involved chains or reverts entirely, enforced by cryptographic proofs. This atomicity is the trust guarantee that oracles currently provide, but without a separate network.
Compare the security models. An oracle-based bridge like Wormhole relies on a multisig attestation. A native verification bridge like ZK Bridge or a shared sequencer network uses validity proofs or consensus finality. The attack surface shrinks from a social consensus to pure cryptography.
Evidence: The 2022 Wormhole hack resulted in a $326M loss from a compromised oracle guardian key. Atomic cross-rollup transactions, as conceptualized in architectures like shared sequencing layers (e.g., Espresso, Astria), make this attack vector impossible by design.
key-trends
THE END OF THE ORACLE MONOPOLY
The Three Trends Making This Inevitable
Atomic cross-rollup transactions are not an incremental improvement; they are a fundamental architectural shift that eliminates the need for external data feeds for a dominant class of DeFi operations.
01
The Problem: Fragmented Liquidity, Centralized Truth
Today's multi-chain world relies on oracles like Chainlink and Pyth to synchronize state. This creates a single point of failure, introduces ~2-10 second latency for price updates, and imposes a rent-seeking tax on every cross-chain swap and lending operation.
- Vulnerability: Oracle manipulation is the #1 DeFi exploit vector.
- Cost: Oracle queries can constitute >30% of transaction gas costs for complex operations.
- Latency: Creates arbitrage windows and stale price risks.
>30%
Cost Premium
2-10s
Latency Lag
02
The Solution: Atomic State Synchronization
Protocols like Across, Chainflip, and Squid are pioneering atomic swaps that use intent-based architectures and shared sequencers. The transaction's validity and settlement are proven within a single atomic bundle, making external price feeds redundant for the swap itself.
- Eliminates Oracle Risk: No need to trust an external data feed for execution.
- Sub-Second Finality: Settlement is as fast as the underlying block times.
- Capital Efficiency: Liquidity is locked only for the atomic window, not perpetually staked.
~500ms
Settlement Time
$0
Oracle Cost
03
The Catalyst: Intents & Shared Sequencing
The rise of intent-based systems (UniswapX, CowSwap) and shared sequencer networks (Espresso, Astria) provides the infrastructure. Users submit a desired outcome ("intent"), and a solver network competes to fulfill it atomically across rollups, using the sequencer as the coordination layer.
- User Abstraction: No more managing bridges and oracles manually.
- Solver Competition: Drives fees toward true execution cost, not data-feed rent.
- Composability: Atomic bundles can include any action, making complex cross-rollup DeFi legs feasible.
10x
More Complex Txns
-90%
User Friction
THE ENDGAME FOR EXTERNAL DEPENDENCIES
Oracle vs. Atomic Cross-Rollup: A Feature Matrix
A direct comparison of data verification mechanisms, highlighting why atomic cross-rollup transactions render traditional oracles obsolete for cross-domain state.
| Feature / Metric | Traditional Oracle (e.g., Chainlink, Pyth) | Atomic Cross-Rollup (e.g., Across, LayerZero, UniswapX) | Hybrid Relay (e.g., Wormhole) |
|---|---|---|---|
Trust Assumption | Off-chain committee or federated network | Cryptographic proof via rollup sequencing | Off-chain guardian network |
Finality Latency | 2-5 seconds (block confirmations + reporting) | < 1 second (inherent to L1 block time) | ~15 seconds (guardian consensus) |
Security Cost | Oracle gas fees + premium staking rewards | Native L1 gas for proof verification only | Relayer fees + staking slashing |
Data Freshness Guarantee | Update frequency (e.g., every block) | Synchronous, atomic state transition | Asynchronous, eventual certainty |
Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) Risk | High (oracle front-running, latency arbitrage) | Negligible (atomic execution eliminates race) | Medium (relayer ordering discretion) |
Cross-Domain Composability | |||
Architectural Overhead | High (requires separate oracle network & contracts) | Minimal (leverages existing rollup infrastructure) | Medium (requires light clients or optimistic verification) |
Failure Mode | Centralized point of failure (oracle nodes) | L1 consensus failure (shared security bedrock) | Guardian network collusion |
deep-dive
THE MECHANISM
The Technical Deep Dive: How It Works & Where It Breaks
Atomic cross-rollup transactions replace external data feeds with direct, verifiable state proofs, rendering traditional oracles redundant for many applications.
Atomic cross-rollup transactions eliminate the oracle problem by making state verification a native protocol function. Instead of trusting an external data feed like Chainlink, a transaction's validity depends on a cryptographic proof of state on the source chain, verified on the destination chain.
The core mechanism is state proofs. Protocols like zkSync's ZK Porter and StarkNet's L3s use validity proofs (ZKPs) to attest to the state of one chain on another. This creates a trust-minimized data bridge that is more secure and cheaper than a generalized oracle network.
This breaks existing oracle economics. For simple asset transfers or DeFi arbitrage between rollups, a dedicated oracle is overkill. The transaction itself is the attestation. This directly threatens the business model of general-purpose oracles like Chainlink or Pyth for intra-rollup liquidity.
The failure mode is liveness, not correctness. Atomicity guarantees the transaction succeeds or fails entirely. The breakage occurs if the underlying proof system or messaging layer (like LayerZero, Axelar) halts. This trades oracle manipulation risk for a different systemic risk.
Evidence: A cross-rollup swap via Across Protocol using an optimistic verification already bypasses price oracles. Its security derives from the economic security of Ethereum, not a separate oracle network, demonstrating the principle in production.
case-study
THE ATOMIC ALTERNATIVE
Use Cases Where Oracles Lose
Oracles are a critical but flawed abstraction for cross-domain state. Atomic cross-rollup transactions render them unnecessary for a growing class of high-value applications.
01
The Problem: Oracle-Based Bridge Arbitrage
Traditional bridges rely on oracles to attest to finality, creating a ~30-minute window for exploit. This latency is the root cause of $2B+ in bridge hacks.\n- Oracle Liveness Risk: A single point of failure for the entire bridge TVL.\n- Price Dislocation: Arbitrage bots front-run the oracle attestation, extracting value from users.
$2B+
Hacked
30 min
Vulnerability Window
02
The Solution: Atomic Cross-Rollup Swaps
Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate the power of atomic intent settlement. Applied to rollups, this eliminates the trusted third party.\n- Guaranteed Execution: The swap either completes fully across chains or fails entirely, no partial state.\n- MEV Resistance: Solvers compete on price, not on oracle front-running, returning value to users.
~500ms
Settlement Latency
0
Oracle Dependency
03
The Problem: Fragmented Lending Markets
Money markets like Aave cannot natively use collateral from another rollup. Oracles are used to price and attest to off-chain collateral, creating systemic risk.\n- Oracle Manipulation: Attackers can drain the entire lending pool by manipulating the price feed of cross-chain collateral.\n- Capital Inefficiency: Billions in TVL sits idle, unable to be used as productive collateral elsewhere.
High
Systemic Risk
$B+
Idle Capital
04
The Solution: Atomic Collateral Migration
Atomic transactions enable a user's collateral to be locked-and-minted across rollups in a single action, verified by state proofs, not price feeds.\n- Risk Isolation: A failure in Rollup B's lending market does not compromise the collateral proof from Rollup A.\n- Capital Efficiency: Unlocks full composability of assets across the modular stack.
1 TX
Cross-Rollup Action
100%
Capital Efficiency
05
The Problem: Oracle-Dependent Perpetuals
Perp DEXs like GMX rely on oracles for mark price and funding rate calculations. This creates centralization vectors and limits design space.\n- Oracle Front-Running: Sophisticated bots predict and exploit price feed updates.\n- Synthetic Limitation: Cannot create truly novel derivatives pegged to cross-chain state (e.g., an L1-L2 basis trade perpetual).
Centralized
Price Feed
Limited
Product Design
06
The Solution: State-Based Settlement
Atomic cross-rollup settlement allows perps to be settled directly against the verified state of another chain (e.g., an L2's sequencer revenue).\n- Novel Primitive: Enables derivatives on any verifiable on-chain metric, not just asset prices.\n- Censorship Resistance: Settlement depends on cryptographic proof, not a committee's data feed.
Any Metric
Underlying Asset
Trustless
Settlement
counter-argument
THE INCUMBENT ADVANTAGE
Steelman: Why Oracles Won't Die (And Why They're Still Wrong)
Oracles retain dominance due to network effects and specialized data feeds, but their core settlement function is being unbundled.
Oracles are data monopolies. Chainlink's network of 1,000+ nodes and Pyth's publisher model create unassailable data moats for price feeds. Replicating this decentralized attestation for niche assets is prohibitively expensive.
Cross-rollup transactions are settlement primitives. Protocols like Across and Stargate move value, not information. They cannot fetch a stock price or a weather datum, which remains the exclusive domain of oracles.
The unbundling is inevitable. Projects like Hyperlane and LayerZero enable sovereign verification, allowing apps to trustlessly pull data from a source chain. This makes the oracle's settlement guarantee redundant for cross-chain state.
Evidence: Chainlink's CCIP processes <0.1% of cross-chain volume versus dedicated bridges. Its value is in data aggregation, not message passing.
takeaways
THE ORACLE ENDGAME
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Atomic cross-rollup transactions use shared sequencing and state proofs to make external data feeds redundant for core DeFi operations.
01
The Oracle Problem is a Settlement Problem
Oracles exist because blockchains are isolated. Cross-rollup atomicity solves this at the settlement layer, not the data layer.
- Eliminates trust assumptions from third-party data providers.
- Removes the latency penalty of waiting for oracle updates (~2-12 seconds).
- Prevents front-running and MEV inherent to oracle price updates.
~500ms
Settlement Latency
$0
Oracle Cost
02
Shared Sequencing as the Atomicity Layer
Protocols like Espresso, Astria, and Radius enable atomic bundles across rollups. This is the infrastructure prerequisite.
- Guarantees execution across chains or fail together.
- Enables native cross-rollup DEXs without wrapped assets or bridges.
- Unlocks complex intents that span multiple execution environments.
10x
Faster Finality
100%
Success Rate
03
Intent-Based Architectures Win
Users express a desired outcome (e.g., "swap X for Y at best price"), and solvers compete across rollups atomically. See UniswapX and CowSwap.
- Solver competition drives efficiency, replacing static oracle feeds.
- Native cross-rollup liquidity is tapped directly, not via synthetic bridges.
- The transaction IS the oracle—execution proves the price was valid.
-50%
Slippage
-90%
Bridge Risk
04
The New Attack Surface: State Proofs
Atomicity relies on cryptographic proofs of state (e.g., zk proofs, optimistic fraud proofs), not data feeds. This shifts security models.
- Security depends on L1 and proof system, not oracle committee.
- Requires light client verification of foreign chain state.
- Vulnerable to liveness failures in the proving system, not price manipulation.
L1 Secure
Trust Root
New Vectors
Risk Profile
05
Oracles Relegated to Long-Tail Data
Oracles won't die; they'll specialize. Cross-rollup atomicity only solves for on-chain, financial state. Real-world data still needs oracles.
- Weather data for insurance, sports scores for prediction markets.
- Enterprise API feeds for tokenized RWA.
- The oracle market shrinks from $10B+ TVL in DeFi to niche use cases.
-80%
Market Scope
Long-Tail
Use Case
06
Architectural Mandate: Build for Atomicity
Protocols must design for this future now. This means embracing EIP-7281 (xERC20), native cross-rollup messaging, and solver networks.
- Integrate shared sequencer clients or risk fragmentation.
- Design state proofs as a first-class citizen, not an afterthought.
- Oracles become a modular plugin, not core infrastructure.
Now
Build Time
Modular
Design Goal
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