Cross-chain is not composable. Moving assets between Ethereum and Arbitrum via a bridge like Across is a single, isolated transaction. A subsequent swap on Uniswap is a separate, non-guaranteed action, exposing users to execution risk and price slippage.
wallet-wars-smart-accounts-vs-embedded-wallets
Blog
Why Cross-Chain Actions Demand Atomic User Operations
Intent-based bridges like LayerZero and Across solve liquidity fragmentation, but they create execution risk. True cross-chain composability requires atomic User Operations to bundle source and destination actions into a single, guaranteed transaction.
introduction
THE ATOMICITY IMPERATIVE
The Cross-Chain Illusion
Cross-chain actions are not composable by default, demanding atomic user operations to prevent systemic risk and user loss.
The solution is atomicity. Protocols like LayerZero's Omnichain Fungible Tokens (OFT) and intent-based architectures from UniswapX and CoW Swap abstract this by batching multi-step, multi-chain actions into a single, all-or-nothing operation for the user.
Evidence: Over $2B has been lost to bridge hacks and MEV exploits, a direct consequence of the fragmented, non-atomic execution model that dominates current cross-chain infrastructure.
key-trends
WHY CROSS-CHAIN ACTIONS DEMAND ATOMIC USER OPERATIONS
The Three Trends Colliding
The convergence of modular blockchains, intent-based architectures, and multi-chain DeFi is exposing the fundamental weakness of non-atomic, sequential transactions.
01
The Modular Stack's Fragmentation Problem
Rollups and app-chains fragment liquidity and state. A simple swap from Arbitrum to Base requires navigating three separate transactions across different sequencers, creating multiple points of failure and settlement delay.
- User Risk: Each hop is a potential MEV extraction or revert.
- Capital Inefficiency: Funds are locked in transit for ~10-30 minutes.
- Dev Complexity: Protocols must manage bespoke messaging and liquidity on each chain.
3+
Transactions
~20 min
Settlement Delay
02
Intent-Based Architectures (UniswapX, CowSwap)
These systems abstract execution by having users declare a desired outcome, not a step-by-step path. However, cross-chain intents today rely on slow, trust-minimized bridges or centralized relayers for fulfillment.
- Latency Gap: On-chain solvers are fast, but cross-chain resolution is not.
- Atomicity Void: The intent's fulfillment is not atomic; the bridge transfer and final swap can decouple.
- Solver Risk: Solvers bear capital risk during the bridging lag, increasing costs.
$10B+
Intent Volume
~500ms
Solver Latency
03
The Multi-Chain DeFi Primitive
Native yield, governance, and liquidity now exist simultaneously on Ethereum L2s, Solana, and Avalanche. Users demand unified access, but bridging and restaking fragments their position and introduces systemic risk (e.g., bridge hacks).
- Position Slippage: Manually moving a yield farm across chains incurs >5% in cumulative fees and slippage.
- Security Debt: Users are forced to trust new bridge validators for each action.
- Protocol Overhead: DAOs must deploy and secure governance on 5+ chains.
5+
Chains Per User
>5%
Slippage & Fees
deep-dive
THE USER OPERATION
Deconstructing the Atomicity Gap
Cross-chain actions are not atomic, creating a fundamental risk that demands a new primitive.
Cross-chain actions are not atomic. A swap on Uniswap and a bridge transfer on Stargate are separate transactions with independent failure states, exposing users to partial execution risk.
The atomicity gap creates MEV and slippage. Searchers exploit the time delay between a successful source-chain action and its target-chain settlement, a vulnerability protocols like Across mitigate with optimistic verification.
User Operations solve this. Standards like ERC-4337 bundle multiple intents into a single atomic transaction, a model that must extend across chains to guarantee all-or-nothing execution.
Evidence: LayerZero's Omnichain Fungible Token standard demonstrates this by making a cross-chain transfer a single, atomic message, eliminating the intermediary settlement window.
CROSS-CHAIN USER EXPERIENCE
The Execution Risk Matrix: Bridging vs. Atomic UserOps
Compares the risk profile and user guarantees of traditional bridging flows versus intent-based, atomic User Operations (UserOps) for cross-chain actions.
| Execution Feature / Risk | Traditional Bridging (e.g., Stargate, LayerZero) | Atomic UserOps (e.g., UniswapX, Across, CowSwap) | Native Chain Abstraction (e.g., NEAR, Particle) |
|---|---|---|---|
Atomic Completion Guarantee | |||
User Funds at Risk During Execution | |||
Settlement Latency (Typical) | 3 - 20 minutes | < 1 minute | < 30 seconds |
Required User Trust Assumptions | Bridge Validators, Relayers | Solver Network, Intent Marketplace | Underlying Chain Security |
MEV Exposure for User | High (Front-running, sandwiching) | Low (Batch auctions, private mempools) | Minimal (Single-chain execution) |
Gas Fee Complexity | User pays on source & destination | User pays once (sponsorable) | User pays once (often sponsored) |
Failed Transaction State | Funds stuck in bridge contract | Entire UserOp reverts atomically | Entire action reverts atomically |
Typical Fee Premium for Atomicity | 0% | 5 - 20 bps | 10 - 50 bps |
protocol-spotlight
CROSS-CHAIN INTENT ARCHITECTURE
Who's Building the Atomic Future?
The next evolution in interoperability moves beyond simple asset transfers to atomic, multi-step operations across chains.
01
The Problem: Fragmented User Journeys
Today's cross-chain actions are a series of isolated transactions, creating a poor UX and exposing users to significant risk.\n- Sequential Risk: Each step is a point of failure; a failed swap on the destination chain leaves you stranded.\n- Capital Inefficiency: Funds are locked in intermediate contracts, increasing opportunity cost and MEV exposure.\n- Time Sink: A simple cross-chain swap can take 5-20 minutes, requiring constant monitoring.
5-20 min
User Wait Time
3+ TXs
Manual Steps
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Coordination
Projects like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across abstract complexity by letting users declare a desired outcome, not a series of steps.\n- Atomic Guarantee: The entire operation succeeds or fails as one unit; no partial failures.\n- Optimized Execution: Solvers compete to fulfill the intent, finding the best route across DEXs and bridges.\n- Gasless UX: Users often sign a single message, with the solver network handling gas and execution.
~500ms
Quote Latency
1 Sign
User Action
03
The Infrastructure: Universal Messaging Layers
Protocols like LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole provide the secure communication primitives needed for atomic composability.\n- Generalized Messaging: Enables arbitrary data and contract calls, not just token transfers.\n- State Verification: Light clients or decentralized oracle networks (DONs) provide secure proof verification.\n- Programmable Actions: Developers can build complex cross-chain applications (lending, derivatives) on top.
$10B+
Secured Value
30+
Chains
04
The Endgame: Chain-Agnostic Smart Accounts
The final piece is an account abstraction standard that operates across all EVM and non-EVM chains, championed by ERC-4337 and projects like ZeroDev and Biconomy.\n- Single Identity: One smart wallet with a unified balance and state across fragmented ecosystems.\n- Batch Operations: Bundle actions across multiple chains into a single user operation.\n- Session Keys: Enable seamless, permissioned interactions with dApps without repeated confirmations.
-90%
Friction
1 Account
All Chains
counter-argument
THE ATOMICITY IMPERATIVE
The Skeptic's View: Is This Over-Engineering?
Cross-chain actions are not a UX problem to be abstracted away, but a fundamental atomicity problem that demands a new architectural primitive.
User operations are not atomic. A simple swap on UniswapX from Arbitrum to Base requires a bridge, which is a separate, trust-dependent transaction. This creates a window for MEV extraction and partial failure states that degrade user experience and security.
Current solutions are fragmented. Protocols like Across and Stargate solve asset transfer, while LayerZero enables generic messaging. The user must stitch these together, introducing coordination overhead and multiple points of failure. This is the core inefficiency.
The demand is for state transitions, not assets. Users want outcomes: a loan repaid on Aave, an NFT minted, a yield position opened. The atomic user operation is the minimal unit that guarantees this cross-chain state change succeeds or reverts entirely.
Evidence: The $2.3B TVL in bridging protocols and the complexity of intent-based systems like CowSwap and UniswapX prove the market is paying a premium to approximate atomicity. A native primitive eliminates this overhead.
takeaways
WHY ATOMICITY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
Cross-chain actions without atomic execution expose users to systemic risk and cripple UX. Here's what breaks and how to fix it.
01
The MEV & Front-Running Problem
Non-atomic, multi-step flows are a free buffet for bots. A user's profitable intent on one chain can be extracted before the dependent action completes on another.\n- Result: Users get sandwiched or see txs fail after fees are spent.\n- Example: A profitable arbitrage signaled on Ethereum is front-run on Solana before the bridging completes.
$100M+
Annual Extractable Value
~70%
Failed Arb Txs
02
The Capital Inefficiency Problem
Bridging assets to perform an action locks capital in transit and requires pre-funding multiple chains. This kills composability and scalability.\n- Result: Idle liquidity and fragmented positions.\n- Contrast: UniswapX and CowSwap solve this on a single chain with intents; cross-chain needs the same atomic guarantee.
>24 hrs
Capital Lock-up
3-5x
Required Capital
03
The Solution: Atomic User Operations
Treat the cross-chain action as a single, all-or-nothing state transition. This is the core innovation behind intent-based architectures like Across and Socket.\n- Mechanism: A solver commits to a result, executes dependencies atomically, and only settles if all conditions are met.\n- Outcome: Zero-risk for users, enabled solvers, and native cross-chain composability.
~2 sec
User Guarantee
100%
Success or Revert
04
The Infrastructure Gap
Current bridges like LayerZero and Wormhole provide messaging, not atomic execution. Builders must assemble this property on top, creating fragility.\n- Reality: Most "cross-chain apps" are just a UI over separate, non-atomic contracts.\n- Opportunity: A standard for atomic cross-chain user ops (like ERC-4337 for cross-chain) is the next infrastructure moat.
$10B+
Bridge TVL at Risk
0
Native Atomic Standards
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