Why Interoperability Demands a New IP Standard

IP is either immutable but bloated on-chain (e.g., fully on-chain art) or flexible but centralized off-chain (e.g., OpenSea's metadata). This creates a false choice between permanence and utility.

• On-chain: Gas-intensive, limits complexity.
• Off-chain: Centralized points of failure, mutable without consensus.
• Result: Assets are trapped in their native environment, breaking cross-application logic.

Move from static JSON files to cryptographically signed attestations that link a token to its mutable IP state. Think of it as an IP oracle.

• Framework: ERC-7496 (NFD) and ERC-7521 propose standard schemas.
• Mechanism: IP updates are signed verifiable credentials, referenced by the NFT contract.
• Outcome: IP becomes portable, composable, and trust-minimized across any chain or platform.

IP data must live on decentralized networks like IPFS, Arweave, or Celestia DA but with execution layers (e.g., Brevity, Lit Protocol) for conditional access and royalties.

• Storage: Arweave for permanence, IPFS + Filecoin for mutable pins.
• Logic: Smart contracts on EVM L2s or Cosmos app-chains govern IP rules.
• Use Case: Dynamic NFTs that change based on real-world events or user-held keys.

Projects like Aavegotchi (GHST) for composable game items and Lens Protocol for portable social graphs are proving the model. They treat NFTs as keys to dynamic state.

• Aavegotchi: NFT attributes (stats, wearables) are on-chain and upgradable.
• Lens: Social connections are attestations, making profiles chain-agnostic.
• Implication: The standard will be forged by applications with the strongest composability needs.

Fractured IP kills enforceable royalties. A universal standard allows royalties to be programmed into the IP attestation itself, not just the transfer hook.

• Mechanism: ERC-7641 enables native yield-bearing NFTs.
• Execution: Royalty logic is part of the IP schema, enforceable across any marketplace.
• Impact: Creators capture value from secondary usage, not just sales, enabling new licensing models.

The final form is an NFT whose core identity and IP are abstracted from its chain representation. This is the intent-centric future for assets.

• Architecture: Similar to UniswapX for swaps or LayerZero for messaging, but for NFT state.
• Stack: A cross-chain state network (like Hyperlane or Axelar) secures the attestation layer.
• Vision: Your Bored Ape's IP works seamlessly in an Arbitrum game, a Solana DEX, and a zkSync social app.

Every new chain requires a new bridge, creating ~50+ isolated liquidity pools and exposing users to constant security audits and bridge hacks (over $2.5B lost). This is a scaling dead-end.

• Capital Inefficiency: Liquidity is siloed, increasing costs.
• Security Dilution: More bridges mean more attack surfaces.
• Poor UX: Users must manually select bridges and sign multiple transactions.

Protocols like LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole are building a new transport layer, treating blockchains as autonomous domains in a unified network.

• Canonical State Verification: Pass messages with native security, not wrapped derivatives.
• Generalized Messaging: Enable any data/function call, not just asset transfers.
• Composable Security: Developers can choose their security model (e.g., light clients, economic guardians).

The next step abstracts the bridge entirely. UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across use intents—users declare a desired outcome (e.g., 'swap X for Y on Arbitrum'), and a decentralized solver network finds the optimal path.

• User Sovereignty: Sign one intent, not multiple bridge approvals.
• Optimal Execution: Solvers compete across all liquidity sources for best price.
• Cost Abstraction: Gas can be paid in any token on any chain.

IBC on Cosmos demonstrates a working TCP/IP for blockchains: a standardized protocol for secure, permissionless inter-chain communication. Its success proves the model.

• Protocol, Not Product: A standard enables an ecosystem, not a single vendor.
• Light Client Security: Highest security guarantee via cryptographic verification of state.
• Composable Apps: Enables cross-chain DeFi legos (e.g., Osmosis).

The final primitive is a unified operating system where applications are chain-agnostic. Polymer, Hyperlane, and Union are building this with modular interoperability hubs.

• Universal App Rollouts: Deploy once, run on any connected chain.
• Shared Security & Liquidity: A single security pool and liquidity layer for all chains.
• Developer Abstraction: No need to understand underlying bridge mechanics.

No system perfectly optimizes for Security, Generalizability, and Latency. You must choose two.

• Security vs. Speed: IBC is secure but slower; some fast bridges use weaker assumptions.
• General vs. Secure: Fully general messaging is complex; specialized asset bridges are simpler.
• The Trade-off: The winning standard will be the one whose compromise best serves the dominant use case.

TCP/IP routes packets, not value or state. It cannot natively verify on-chain proofs or enforce smart contract logic, forcing every bridge and cross-chain app to build its own security layer. This creates a patchwork of trusted intermediaries where the weakest link defines system security.

• Problem: Reliance on external oracles and multisigs for finality.
• Consequence: Creates $2B+ in bridge hack losses since 2022.

Without a shared state layer, each chain and rollup is a silo. Moving assets via bridges like LayerZero or Axelar creates wrapped derivatives, fracturing liquidity and composability. This defeats the purpose of a unified web3 ecosystem.

• Problem: Wrapped assets (wBTC, wETH) dominate cross-chain value.
• Consequence: Liquidity is trapped, increasing slippage and systemic risk during volatility.

Intent-based architectures (UniswapX, CowSwap) abstract complexity but push the interoperability burden to centralized solvers. This recreates the MEV and centralization problems of traditional finance, just with a crypto front-end.

• Problem: Solvers become the new trusted, extractive intermediaries.
• Consequence: User sovereignty is traded for UX, creating centralized choke points.

Building a new internet layer requires trillions in sunk cost for infrastructure and adoption. The economic incentives for ISPs, cloud providers, and developers to adopt a blockchain-native IP standard are unclear, creating a massive coordination failure.

• Problem: No clear tokenomics flywheel for physical infrastructure.
• Consequence: Risk of remaining a niche protocol for crypto-natives only.

TCP/IP routes data packets, not verifiable state. This forces every interoperability solution—from LayerZero to Axelar—to build a trusted verification layer on top, creating centralization vectors and security overhead.

• Attack Surface: Bridges and oracles become $2B+ honeypots.
• Architectural Debt: Every new chain multiplies the integration complexity (N^2 problem).

Protocols like UniswapX and CoW Swap abstract execution via intents, but they rely on a fragmented network of solvers and fillers. A universal state layer would turn cross-chain intent settlement from a coordination nightmare into a deterministic protocol.

• Solver Efficiency: Atomic cross-chain fills without intermediary custody.
• User Experience: Single transaction flows across Ethereum, Solana, and Avalanche.

Celestia for data, EigenLayer for security, Arbitrum for execution—modularity fragments state. A new internet protocol must natively attest to state transitions, not just data availability, enabling rollups and L2s to interoperate at the VM level.

• Developer Primitive: Compose smart contracts across chains as if they were on one.
• Investor Mandate: The infrastructure enabling the next $10B+ DApp will be cross-chain by default.