We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience, serve personalized ads or content, and analyze our traffic. By clicking "Accept All", you consent to our use of cookies.
Customize Consent Preferences
We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.
The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ...
Always Active
Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.
No cookies to display.
Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.
No cookies to display.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
No cookies to display.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
No cookies to display.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.
After announcing it would integrate a wrapped version of Lido’s ever-popular staked Ethereum token, the team behind the cross-chain protocol was hit with hefty backlash from the Lido community.
The wrapped version of stETH is an ERC-20 version of the original blend stETH, making it easier to be reused in other applications. Lido Finance is a popular staking protocol.
This is what LayerZero had integrated on Wednesday across BNB Chain, the buzzy layer-2 network Scroll, and Avalanche.
But why the backlash exactly?
Well, first and foremost, they didn’t askfirst apparently, circumventing the governance powers that oversee the smooth operation of Lido Finance.
Often, when a decentralized finance (DeFi) project wants to make a change to the project, it first seeks approval from members of its decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) who vote for or against the change using their governance tokens. Lido’s governance token, for example, is LDO.
“Honestly shocked by LayerZero’s move here,” wrote bridging project Socket’s growth lead Lito Coen. “Completely frontrunning LidoDAO’s governance process and its network expansion team to deploy a wstETH version to Scroll, BNB chain and Avalanche.”
Simultaneous with the technical implementation, LayerZero did actually introduce a governance proposal to approve the integration and transfer bridge ownership to LidoDAO.
However, a LidoDAO representative told Decrypt that the decentralized organization was not aware of the integration.
The staking protocol tweeted yesterday that the LayerZero “bridge is not canonical and has not been audited or endorsed by the Lido DAO” and advised “extreme caution” when using the bridge.
Beyond “frontrunning” governance, others in the Lido community pointed to security concerns around LayerZero’s design.
Stay on top of crypto news, get daily updates in your inbox.
Security concerns around LayerZero
LayerZero is a complicated beast, but understanding its architecture in broad strokes can also make clear some of the concerns raised by those in the Lido community.
When the bridging protocol integrated wstETH, they basically made it available as an Omni-chain Fungible Token (OFT). This token standard is what allows tokens from different networks to interact with one another through LayerZero.
In the process of transferring tokens, it creates a new token on the bridged side, whose supply is based on the amount of assets bridged through LayerZero.
If a user were to send 1 wstETH token from Ethereum to Avalanche, for example, it’s not technically the exact same token. Instead what is happening is LayerZero is custoding the original wstETH token in a smart contract and then minting an Avalanche-compatible representation on the other side.
When the user decides to move that representation back to Ethereum, the LayerZero protocol then destroys that representation before returning the original wstETH token.
This, in a nutshell, is what is understood as a “mint-and-burn” bridge. This mechanism isn’t without its risks, though.
Hart Lambur, a LidoDAO community member and co-founder of UMA Protocol wrote, “This means that if this messaging layer is ever corrupted, there is the possibility of an unlimited mint of wstETH.”
Additionally, the security of LayerZero’s OFT-based tokens is dependent on LayerZero’s native validators. That’s not the case with other layer-2 networks like Arbitrum and Optimism, which already have wstETH added to the ecosystem via a native bridge.
Independent DeFi analyst Arixon tweeted that layer-2 blockchains are supposed to provide a “trustless bridge to layer-1; you lose this with OFT.”
DefiYaco, a business development lead at LidoDAO, agreed with Arixon’s point in the LidoDAO discussion forum saying that “wstETH should be by default minted with the native bridge.”
He added, “using any other bridge provider without a strong case for it just adds more risk.”
LayerZero drops Scroll
To make amends, the bridging protocol appears to be backtracking on at least one integration.
A LayerZero representative said in a reply on LidoDAO’s governance proposal, “we recognize the preferences of the DAO regarding native bridges and L2s,’” before removing LayerZero’s wstETH token from Scroll Network.
The representative added that they “strongly agree” with the DAO regarding the preferences of both users and protocol developers for native bridges over those built by LayerZero.
Stay on top of crypto news, get daily updates in your inbox.
Post Disclaimer
The information provided in our posts or blogs are for educational and informative purposes only. We do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information. We do not provide financial or investment advice. Readers should always seek professional advice before making any financial or investment decisions based on the information provided in our content. We will not be held responsible for any losses, damages or consequences that may arise from relying on the information provided in our content.
This website uses cookies and asks your personal data to enhance your browsing experience. We are committed to protecting your privacy and ensuring your data is handled in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).