Translation: Founder of MakerDAO: The Reason I Don't Follow the Multi-Chain Cross-Chain Trend

Recently, various public blockchains have been performing exceptionally well, with continuous price increases. Through themes such as DeFi ecosystem rewards and NFTs, they attract users who were originally on Ethereum by offering cost-effective solutions. The concept of "cross-chain bridges" has become more popular in a multi-chain environment, where people need such facilities to transfer assets between different underlying blockchains, leading to a thriving cross-chain business opportunity.

Translating a series of tweets from MakerDAO founder Rune Christensen, he reflects on the prevalence of multiple chains and attempts to explain the reasons why Maker chooses not to expand to other underlying chains.

A multichain future is a multisig future.

L1's by definition have unique security and governance models that means it is impossible to build trustless bridges between them, since the definition of trustless changes based on which side of the bridge you're standing. pic.twitter.com/dhfkoGWkCz

— Rune (@RuneKek) September 10, 2021

Coexistence of Multiple Chains: Entrusting Everything to Multi-Signature Cross-Chain Bridges

"The future of coexisting multiple chains will be a future of multiple signatures," said Rune Christensen, the founder of MakerDAO.

Christensen stated that according to the definition of the L1 underlying chain, it will have its own security and governance models, which means it is impossible to build "trustless" cross-chain bridges between different blockchains because the definition of "trustless" would shift depending on which end of the bridge you are on.

He explained that the only current solution is to have a secure and governance-modeled third party execute it, acting as an intermediary translating cross-chain asset demands between two blockchains. However, Christensen believes that multi-signature (multisig) cross-chain bridges are the worst because everything on them is centralized.

Admit It! True L1 Interoperability Does Not Exist

"Honestly, the current way of using multisig as a short-term solution to patch blockchain issues is like using duct tape everywhere," Christensen said, "and it can only be a short-term fix."

He believes that those who intend to use it as long-term infrastructure will not succeed.

He pointed out that while multisig bridges are indeed popular, they have created a super disaster of multisig multi-chain, where most cryptocurrencies are custodied, severely challenging the necessity of blockchain technology.

"Let's admit it! True L1 interoperability does not exist," Christensen stated.

In the Long Run, Only One L1 Will Exist

Christensen believes that over time, only one L1 underlying chain will exist. New network participants will choose the largest chain, leading to a single L1 with numerous L2 layer solutions coexisting, creating interconnected networks. Existing L1 ecosystems still have natural competitive tensions among them, and it remains uncertain who will ultimately prevail.

Maker Ventures into Solana? The Downside of Multi-Chain Trend

Christensen uses Maker and Solana as an example to express his views on L1, believing that it is a fight to the death. However, he emphasizes not to take it as a governance proposal for Maker.

He envisions a scenario where MakerDAO on Ethereum moves to Solana, the fastest-growing and theoretically most competitive underlying chain. It would require expanding Dai's applications on Solana and deploying a vault engine to allow Dai to be generated directly on Solana.

"After all, with Solana's hype and momentum, isn't it reasonable to diversify risk by placing a bet there?" Christensen wrote.

He pointed out that all Dai would be custodied in a centralized manner in the cross-chain bridge between Solana and Ethereum. This means that Dai would have to bear the drawbacks of multisig and Solana. Essentially, the underlying chain can only rely on trust-required cross-chain bridges. Meanwhile, a replicated version of Maker on Solana would not have such issues, offering Solana users complete decentralization and trustlessness, only bearing the drawbacks from Solana.

Christensen explained that this would leave Maker at a competitive disadvantage on Solana, almost negating everything developed first on the blockchain. If there is a reason for blockchain to exist, Maker would eventually lose to "local" competitors, meaning non-Ethereum-native competitors.

One possible outcome is that if one day Solana's network effect surpasses Ethereum, then Maker's correct choice would be to abandon Ethereum and move its core to Solana. This would make Maker potentially become a native Dapp on Solana, providing security through Solana to gain a competitive market base. Similarly, if it becomes apparent that Solana or another underlying chain cannot surpass Ethereum, other non-Ethereum-native protocols would likely have to move their core to Ethereum to remain competitive.

He added, "Ultimately, this defense-based migration could turn into a scandalous affair, making survival extremely difficult after such a move, once you detach from your roots, it will be challenging to re-establish such a close connection with the new ecosystem."

He believes that if Maker should expand to Solana, focusing on Ethereum's Layer 2 solutions while avoiding short-term growth temptations could be more rational for long-term sustainability.

He thinks that the best strategy now seems to be "Trojan horse-style multi-chain political propaganda": essentially pretending that L1 underlying chains are not trapped in a deathmatch and inviting all competitors on other L1s to build network effects on centralized cross-chain bridges to expand your ecosystem. He said, "You have to understand that any attraction they create will easily be consumed due to the inherent advantages of decentralization. Although I oversimplify these issues, it is based on my core arguments."