Interoperable Quest

Protocols like Aave or Compound can deploy quests that reward users for interacting with their deployments across various Layer 2s and alternative Layer 1s. This allows them to:

• Aggregate liquidity and user activity data from Ethereum, Optimism, and Base into a single loyalty dashboard.
• Issue cross-chain attestations or soulbound tokens (SBTs) that represent a user's total protocol engagement, regardless of chain.
• Distribute rewards on the user's chain of choice.

In gaming, interoperable quests enable true asset portability. A player could:

• Earn a sword NFT by completing a dungeon in a game on Immutable X.
• Use that NFT as a key to unlock a related quest in a partner game on Arbitrum.
• The quest completion status and earned items are recorded on a neutral verification layer (like a rollup or an L1), making achievements portable across the gaming metaverse.

DAO governance can be expanded beyond a single chain. An interoperable quest system could incentivize and track participation in:

• Snapshot votes for a DAO deployed on Ethereum.
• Proposal discussions on a forum hosted on IPFS.
• Execution of approved proposals via Gnosis Safe on Polygon. Participants receive verifiable, chain-agnostic credentials proving their involvement in the decentralized governance process.

An Interoperable Quest allows a user to perform actions on one blockchain (e.g., swapping tokens on Arbitrum) and have that completion data be recognized and rewarded by a protocol on another blockchain (e.g., an NFT mint on Polygon). This breaks the traditional siloed model of on-chain engagement.

• Key Enabler: Relies on interoperability protocols and message-passing bridges to communicate proof of completion.
• User Benefit: Provides a unified, multi-chain experience without requiring manual bridging of assets or profiles for each step.

The technical foundation for Interoperable Quests is often built upon proposed token standards like ERC-721Q (Quest) or extensions to existing standards. These define a common schema for quest data that different platforms can understand.

• Standardized Metadata: Specifies fields for quest objectives, reward criteria, and completion proof.
• Verifiable Claims: Uses attestations or verifiable credentials (VCs) to create portable, cryptographically signed proofs of task completion that can be consumed by any verifying contract.

A critical component is the middleware that relays proof of completion between chains. This is not a simple asset bridge but a general message passing system.

• Common Protocols: Utilizes infrastructures like LayerZero, Axelar, Wormhole, or Chainlink CCIP to send verified completion messages.
• Verification Contract: A smart contract on the destination chain receives the message, validates the proof, and triggers the reward mint or status update.

Interoperable Quests are powerful tools for ecosystem growth and user onboarding.

• Project Example: A user might complete a "DeFi Explorer" quest requiring them to:
  1. Provide liquidity on Uniswap (Ethereum Mainnet).
  2. Bridge funds via Hop Protocol (to Optimism).
  3. Stake tokens in a vault on Aave (Optimism).
• Unified Reward: Upon completing all cross-chain steps, the user receives a single, non-transferable Soulbound Token (SBT) on Base as a proof-of-skill badge, aggregating their multi-chain activity.

Interoperable Quests enable the creation of a composable reputation graph that spans multiple blockchains. Completion badges or SBTs from various ecosystems become portable credentials.

• Data Portability: A user's proven actions on Arbitrum can contribute to their reputation score on Avalanche, enabling sybil-resistant airdrops or credit scoring.
• Protocols Building This: Projects like Galxe, RabbitHole, and Layer3 are pioneering frameworks for issuing and tracking interoperable credential-based quests.

The security model of an Interoperable Quest inherits the risks of its underlying interoperability layer.

• Bridge Risk: If the message-passing bridge is compromised, false completion proofs could be minted, devaluing the quest system.
• Verifier Centralization: Many systems rely on a trusted off-chain verifier or oracle network to attest to on-chain events, creating a potential central point of failure.
• Standard Fragmentation: Lack of a universally adopted quest standard can lead to ecosystem fragmentation, reducing true interoperability.

The on-chain program that defines the quest's rules and reward logic. It listens for verified messages from the cross-chain protocol. Key functions include:

• Verification: Confirms the user's action meets predefined criteria (e.g., "swap >$100 on Uniswap").
• State Management: Tracks user completion status to prevent double-claiming.
• Reward Distribution: Mints or transfers tokens/NFTs upon successful verification.

A flexible mechanism for issuing incentives across different chains and asset types. It separates the reward logic from the quest logic, enabling:

• Multi-Chain Payouts: Rewards can be native tokens, bridged assets, or NFTs on the user's chain of choice.
• Sponsor Integration: Allows protocols to fund quests with their own tokens to drive specific user actions (e.g., liquidity provisioning).
• Dynamic Rewards: Points or token amounts can be adjusted based on cross-chain activity volume or market conditions.

Decentralized infrastructure that executes the cross-chain transaction. After the messaging protocol verifies the proof, a relayer is paid a fee to submit the final transaction that mints the reward on the destination chain. This abstracts gas complexities from the user, who may not hold gas tokens on the reward chain.