Why Interoperable Access Tokens Will Win

Every new chain requires a new wallet, new gas token, and new onboarding. This fragments liquidity and creates a terrible UX, stalling mass adoption.

• User Friction: Managing dozens of native gas tokens is a non-starter.
• Liquidity Silos: Capital is trapped, reducing efficiency across the ecosystem.
• Security Risk: Users constantly bridge and sign new contracts.

Treat the entire multi-chain ecosystem as a single state machine. Users sign with one key, pay with one token, and the protocol handles the rest via meta-transactions and intent relaying.

• Single Sign-On: Use one account (e.g., NEAR account) across Ethereum, Polygon, Solana.
• Gasless UX: Protocol subsidizes or abstracts away native gas complexities.
• Intent-Based: Users specify what they want, not how to execute it.

Leverage Ethereum's security to create a canonical, restaked asset that can be used to pay for gas on any connected chain via AVSs (Actively Validated Services).

• Security Export: Ethereum's economic security is portable.
• Unified Collateral: One staked asset (e.g., restaked ETH) secures and powers multiple chains.
• Sovereign Execution: Each appchain can define its own rules while inheriting shared security.

Move beyond simple asset bridges to systems that fulfill complex user intents (e.g., "Swap X on Chain A for Y on Chain B") by finding the optimal path across liquidity pools and solvers.

• Best Execution: Automatically routes via the fastest/cheapest bridge (LayerZero, Circle CCTP).
• Solver Competition: Market makers compete to fulfill your intent, improving prices.
• UniswapX Model: Pioneered the intent-based, auction-driven cross-chain swap.

The endgame isn't a single chain winning. It's users owning their access layer, freely moving their identity, assets, and liquidity without permission.

• User-Centric Model: Protocols compete for users, not the other way around.
• Composable Security: Choose your security budget (EigenLayer) and execution environment (NEAR) independently.
• Killer App Enabler: Enables applications that are natively multi-chain from day one.

Abstracting complexity often centralizes it. Relayers, solvers, and sequencers in these systems become powerful MEV extraction points and potential censorship vectors.

• Relayer Risk: A few entities control transaction ordering and inclusion.
• Solver Cartels: Could collude to offer worse prices.
• Regulatory Attack Surface: A centralized intent fulfiller is an easy target.

IATs require deep, cross-chain liquidity to function. If adoption is slow, thin markets create a negative feedback loop.

• High slippage on small trades erodes user trust.
• Arbitrage inefficiency fails to correct price discrepancies, breaking the core peg mechanism.
• Competitors like LayerZero's OFT or Circle's CCTP could capture early liquidity, creating a winner-take-most market.

IATs are only as secure as the underlying message-passing layer. A single bridge hack dooms the entire token system.

• Dependency risk on bridges like Axelar, Wormhole, or LayerZero.
• Governance attack on the IAT protocol could mint unlimited synthetic assets.
• Contrast with native assets (e.g., wBTC, stETH) which have a single, auditable custodian or contract.

IATs, by design, obscure asset origin and jurisdiction, painting a target for regulators.

• SEC could classify them as unregistered securities due to cross-chain utility promises.
• OFAC sanctions compliance becomes technically impossible if the token path is non-deterministic.
• Major CEXs (Coinbase, Binance) may refuse listing due to compliance overhead, stifling liquidity.

IATs add a layer of abstraction that most users and developers don't understand, creating adoption friction.

• Wallet UX breaks: Users see 'magic tokens' they can't verify on-chain explorers.
• Developer overhead: Integrating IATs requires understanding bridge delays, attestations, and fallback logic.
• Simpler solutions like Chainlink CCIP for data or Across for fast transfers may win on composability alone.

Native gas tokens and per-chain liquidity lock users into a single ecosystem. This creates friction that kills adoption.

• User Drop-off: Requiring users to bridge, swap for gas, and manage multiple wallets loses >90% of potential users.
• Capital Inefficiency: Billions in TVL sits idle on single chains, unable to be deployed cross-chain without complex, risky bridging.

Interoperable tokens like EigenLayer's AVS tokens or Polygon AggLayer's unified liquidity act as a universal settlement layer. Pay for any chain's gas with a single asset.

• One-Click UX: Users interact with dApps on any supported chain from a single wallet interface (e.g., Metamask Snaps, Safe{Wallet}).
• Protocol Capture: The token that becomes the default 'gas currency' for cross-chain activity accrues fees from every transaction, not just its native chain.

The true battleground is not bridges, but solvers. Protocols like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across that fulfill user intents will integrate these tokens as the default payment rail.

• Solver Economics: Solvers bid for bundles using the interoperable token, creating massive, sticky demand and MEV-resistant execution.
• Liquidity Flywheel: More solver demand → higher token utility → deeper liquidity → better prices for users, creating a virtuous cycle that legacy bridges cannot match.

Security is not just about bridges. The winning token will be the staking asset for decentralized sequencer sets (like Espresso, Astria) and proof markets (like Risc Zero, Succinct).

• Unified Security: A single staking token secures transaction ordering and proof generation for hundreds of rollups, creating a massive economic moat.
• Settlement Finality: This reduces reliance on any single L1 (like Ethereum) for security, enabling sub-second finality across chains at a fraction of the cost.

The winning protocol will be the one developers default to because it's the easiest path to omnichain users. Look for SDK integration metrics, not just TVL.

• Ecosystem Grants: Protocols that aggressively fund developers to build omnichain dApps (like Polygon, Avalanche) will seed early dominance.
• Infrastructure Partners: Integration with major RPC providers (Alchemy, QuickNode) and account abstraction stacks (Biconomy, ZeroDev) is a leading indicator.

The interoperable access token transcends being a mere 'gas token'. It becomes the equity of the omnichain internet.

• Value Accrual: It captures fees from sequencing, proving, bridging, and settling trillions in cross-chain volume.
• Protocol vs. Chain: This flips the model. Instead of building a new L1, you build a new standard—akin to how TCP/IP won over proprietary networks. The token backing that standard wins.