Security is a data problem. A protocol's risk profile is defined by the real-time state of its assets, validators, and governance across every chain it touches, but this data is siloed in incompatible formats.
developer-ecosystem-tools-languages-and-grants
Blog
The Cost of Fragmented Security Data Across Chains
Security tooling is chain-locked. This creates critical blind spots for cross-chain protocols, leaving bridges and dApps vulnerable to correlated attacks that no single monitoring service can see. We analyze the data silo problem and its systemic risks.
introduction
THE DATA
Introduction
Fragmented security data across blockchains creates systemic risk and operational overhead that directly impacts protocol security and capital efficiency.
Manual aggregation creates blind spots. Teams using disparate tools like Nansen, DefiLlama, and Tenderly for different chains introduce latency and error, missing cross-chain exploits that unfold in minutes.
The cost is quantifiable. A 2023 exploit on a Multichain bridge demonstrated how delayed awareness of validator set changes on a secondary chain led to a $130M loss.
Unified security data is infrastructure. The industry treats security as a product, but it is a foundational data layer, as critical as the RPC endpoints from Alchemy or Infura for application logic.
key-trends
THE COST OF FRAGMENTED SECURITY DATA
The Fragmentation Trap: Three Unseen Risks
Security models built on isolated chain data are fundamentally incomplete, creating systemic blind spots.
01
The Oracle Problem for Risk Models
Risk engines like Gauntlet or Chaos Labs rely on stale, siloed data, failing to model cross-chain contagion. A depeg on Avalanche can liquidate positions on Arbitrum before local oracles update.\n- Blind Spot: Inability to price risk from correlated assets on other L2s.\n- Real Cost: Cascading liquidations across chains, amplifying drawdowns.
~12-24h
Data Lag
$100M+
Event Risk
02
MEV Extraction via Fragmented Liquidity
Bots exploit information asymmetry between chains. A large swap on Uniswap on Mainnet can be front-run on Optimism pools before cross-chain messages finalize.\n- Attack Vector: Cross-domain arbitrage and latency-based frontrunning.\n- Victim: End-users and LPs suffer consistent, invisible slippage leakage.
50-200bps
Slippage Leak
~2s
Exploit Window
03
The Compliance Black Hole
Sanctions screening and entity clustering (TRM Labs, Chainalysis) break at chain borders. Funds can be laundered through a series of sanctioned addresses by hopping across Polygon, Base, and Solana.\n- Regulatory Risk: Inability to prove fund provenance across the full stack.\n- Business Cost: Increased compliance overhead and potential for enforcement action.
40%+
Coverage Gap
10x
Manual Review
deep-dive
THE DATA FRAGMENTATION
Anatomy of a Cross-Chain Blind Spot
Security assessments fail because risk data is siloed across incompatible chains and protocols.
Security is a chain-specific illusion. A protocol's safety score on Ethereum reveals nothing about its risk on Arbitrum or Base. This creates a false sense of security for users and integrators who assume a single audit or on-chain metric is universally valid.
Risk vectors are non-portable. A safe multisig configuration on Ethereum becomes a critical vulnerability on a chain with different governance finality. The security model of LayerZero differs fundamentally from that of a light-client bridge like IBC, but current tools treat them as equivalent.
Evidence: The Wormhole exploit occurred because the attacker identified a flaw in a guardian node's signing logic, a risk invisible to tools only monitoring the destination chain's contract code. This demonstrates the fatal gap in cross-chain context.
CHAINSCORE LABS ANALYSIS
The Visibility Gap: Security Tool Coverage Matrix
Comparing the fragmented visibility of leading security tools across major L1s and L2s. A true value indicates native, real-time coverage; false indicates reliance on third-party data or no coverage.
| Chain / Metric | Forta | Tenderly | OpenZeppelin Defender | Chainscore |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Ethereum Mainnet | ||||
Arbitrum | ||||
Optimism | ||||
Base | ||||
Polygon PoS | ||||
Solana | ||||
Sui | ||||
Aptos | ||||
Near | ||||
Starknet | ||||
zkSync Era | ||||
Avalanche C-Chain | ||||
Data Latency | ~12 sec | < 3 sec | ~15 sec | < 1 sec |
Custom Alert Logic | ||||
MEV Bundle Detection | ||||
Cross-Chain Threat Correlation |
case-study
THE COST OF FRAGMENTED SECURITY DATA
Case Studies in Fragmented Failure
Isolated security models create systemic blind spots, turning multi-chain into multi-risk.
01
The Wormhole Hack: A $326M Blind Spot
The exploit wasn't in the bridge's core logic, but in a guardian node's signature verification. A unified security data layer could have flagged the anomalous transaction pattern across the Solana and Ethereum state differential in real-time.
- Isolated Monitoring: Guardians validated signatures in a vacuum, missing the cross-chain context.
- Delayed Response: The exploit propagated for hours before manual intervention.
$326M
Exploit Size
>4 hrs
Detection Lag
02
Polygon vs. Avalanche: The Oracle Dilemma
DeFi protocols on Polygon and Avalanche using the same asset (e.g., USDC) rely on separate, chain-specific oracle networks like Chainlink. A flash loan attack on one chain can create arbitrage opportunities and liquidations on the other before price feeds sync.
- Data Silos: Oracle updates are not atomic across chains, creating temporary price discrepancies.
- Cascading Risk: A $5M exploit on Chain A can trigger $50M+ in forced liquidations on Chain B.
2-5s
Oracle Latency Gap
10x
Cascade Multiplier
03
The MEV Cartel's Cross-Chain Playground
Searchers exploit fragmented mempools and block-building markets across Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base. They front-run bridge transactions and perform latency arbitrage, extracting value that should go to users or LPs on Uniswap or Aave.
- Uncoordinated Auctions: MEV is extracted per-chain, missing the holistic value of a cross-chain bundle.
- User Tax: Results in ~5-15 bps worse execution for every cross-chain swap via intents on UniswapX or CowSwap.
5-15 bps
Extra Slippage
$100M+
Annual Extractable Value
04
LayerZero & Omnichain Debt: A Ticking Bomb
Omnichain lending protocols using LayerZero for messaging allow users to collateralize assets on Chain A to borrow on Chain B. Without a unified view of cross-chain debt positions, the system cannot accurately calculate global loan-to-value ratios, risking under-collateralization during volatile, multi-chain market events.
- Fragmented State: Risk engines see slices of a position, not the whole.
- Systemic Undercollateralization: A 10% drop on one chain could trigger insolvencies across a dozen others.
0
Unified Risk View
10%
Trigger Threshold
future-outlook
THE COST OF FRAGMENTATION
The Path to Unified Security
Fragmented security data across chains creates systemic risk and operational overhead that undermines the multi-chain thesis.
Fragmentation creates systemic blind spots. A validator's reputation on Solana is invisible on Avalanche, forcing protocols to rebuild trust from zero. This data siloing enables Sybil attacks and forces redundant, expensive due diligence for every new chain integration.
The cost is measured in capital inefficiency. Isolated security models force protocols like Aave and Compound to deploy overcollateralized, isolated pools on each chain. This locks billions in idle capital that a unified cross-chain reputation system would free for productive use.
Current solutions are stopgaps, not systems. Oracle networks like Chainlink and Pyth aggregate data within domains, but they do not create a portable, composable identity layer. Bridging protocols like LayerZero and Wormhole move assets, but they do not natively transport user or validator security states.
Evidence: The Wormhole hack exploited a validator signature verification flaw that a unified, chain-agnostic security scoring system could have flagged. The attacker's wallet had no prior reputation, a signal lost in fragmentation.
takeaways
THE FRAGMENTATION TAX
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Managing security across multiple chains isn't just an ops headache; it's a direct, compounding tax on capital efficiency and systemic risk.
01
The Problem: Capital is Stuck in Silos
TVL is fragmented across 20+ major chains and 50+ L2s. This creates massive opportunity cost and operational drag.\n- Inefficient Risk Modeling: Can't assess cross-chain counterparty exposure in real-time.\n- Manual Rebalancing: Teams waste engineering cycles on bespoke, per-chain monitoring scripts.\n- Fragmented Collateral: Capital can't be dynamically allocated to the highest-yielding, safest pools across the ecosystem.
20+
Chains
$100B+
Fragmented TVL
02
The Solution: Unified Security Graph
Aggregate on-chain security signals (slashing events, governance attacks, validator churn) into a single cross-chain data layer. Think EigenLayer for security data.\n- Holistic Risk Score: Generate a protocol's composite security score across all deployments.\n- Automated Alerts: Trigger rebalancing or pausing via Gelato or Chainlink based on threshold breaches.\n- Capital Efficiency: Enable cross-margin and shared collateral models, similar to dYdX v4 but for protocol treasury management.
~500ms
Alert Latency
1 Dashboard
Unified View
03
The Implementation: Modular Data Oracles
Don't build monolithic aggregators. Use a modular stack: Celestia for cheap data availability, EigenDA for cryptoeconomic security, and Pyth/Chainlink for specific feed aggregation.\n- Cost-Effective: Pay only for the security guarantees you need per data type.\n- Composable: Plug into existing risk engines from Gauntlet or Chaos Labs.\n- Future-Proof: New chain integration becomes a data module, not a full rewrite.
-90%
Integration Cost
Modular
Architecture
04
The Payoff: Systemic Risk Reduction
A unified view turns reactive security into proactive capital management. This is the infrastructure for cross-chain Circuit Breakers and DeFi Safe Mode.\n- Contagion Containment: Isolate vulnerabilities in one chain (e.g., a Solana validator attack) from draining liquidity on Arbitrum.\n- Insurance Premiums: Accurate, real-time risk data allows protocols like Nexus Mutual to offer dynamic, cross-chain coverage.\n- VC Due Diligence: Investors can finally audit a protocol's true multi-chain footprint and risk posture.
10x
Faster Response
Systemic
Resilience
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