*Paid Advertisement. Not financial advice. RugDoc is not responsible for the projects showcased here. DYOR and ape safu.

Introducing the Relay Chain: DeFi Bridge

RELAY is based on the principles of locking, minting, burning, releasing, and wrapping tokens that are set by ChainSafe technology. The reliability and stability of the bridge has been improved using custom code.

A cross-chain operation requires three approaches for ensuring security and safety: thorough smart contracts/code audits, continuous “white hat” hacker surveillance, and decentralization of relayers.

Bridging a token back and forth #

To accomplish cross-chain transfers, users send tokens to the Relay bridge contract and receive them back in the same wallet address on the destination chain.

An origin chain token is bridged to a destination chain when:

  • An origin chain is locked to a token
  • On the destination chain, the token is minted: it becomes a wrapped token (like AVAX on Polygon). Relay, for example, is native on all chains supported by the bridge.

Tokens bridged back to their origin chain are either:

  • Burned on the chain where they were minted.
  • Released on their origin chains.

Wrapped tokens vs fungibility #

Wrapped tokens have the drawback that they are non-fungible: Two bridges from two different tokens end up with a different (and incompatible) wrapped token. It also means liquidity is fragmented on the destination chain, such as the need for two liquidity pools on the destination chain for each wrapped token transferred from its origin chain.

In some cases, projects are able to offer trade services (1:1 ratio) between two wrapped tokens versions on the destination chain of the same token, but the user is dependent on which wrapped tokens are supported by these kinds of projects to (almost) seamlessly use any bridge between the two chains.

The Relay project is focused on brokering solid partnerships with well-established players in different domains (such as DEXs, lending platforms, and smart contract platforms) to propagate wrapped token versions by the Relay bridge on the multiple chains supported by the Relay bridge, with enough liquidity everywhere.

Furthermore, the project will seed initial liquidity with the Relay token and native gas tokens (such as ETH, AVAX, MATIC, BNB, etc.) on the chains the bridge will support. Besides that, there are other tokens with specific partners for cross-chain and/or setting liquidity with Relay (like $QUICK from Quickswap). In that way, we can use the Relay bridge to transport assets from one chain to another without having to combine it with other bridges to fill in gaps between chains.

While some projects are attempting to resolve the fungibility issue, they have/had been experimental and/or careless with audits, disregarding the security of their users’ funds, as well as being subject to major and public hacks (like Thorchain, ChainSwap, Poly Network, AnySwap). At the moment, these more exotic cross-chain designs using liquidity bridging, mapping tokens, etc. have proven to be most vulnerable to attacks from malicious actors. Bridge users have lost millions of dollars due to these incidents. Safety and security are Relay’s top priorities. It has proven to be the most bulletproof method so far to use wrapped tokens.

The Relay team is looking for a solution to the fungibility problem on its own, but will not use it until it is proven to be safe, scalable, and secure.

A major challenge in crypto today is solving the conundrum of interoperability in DeFi while ensuring seamless, secure, and fast execution. As a result of Relay’s vast experience in the bridging space, they are among the best positioned to assess and execute a way forward without carelessly risking the funds of users.

Security with audits #

A smart contract’s and bridge code’s security is as follows:

  • Consensys Diligence audited Chainsafe
  • Zokyo audited the original smart contracts when the project was formerly known as Zero Exchange (the original launch of the bridge), which later evolved into Relay.
  • We have had the Relay bridge audited by Halborn + subscribed to their continuous audit monitoring service.

Safety by Decentralization — Relayers #

Decentralization of the relayers is another strategy for improving security and safety. The relayer’s role is to vote (= approve) a request to give the green light to its execution (destination wallet, amount of tokens to lock, mint, burn, release).

Relay chain bridge

A vote of 4 similar votes is required to approve a cross-chain request among the 5 public relayers plus one managed by the team. Multiple relayers must be hacked at the same time in order to compromise the bridge (like minting more than locked and/or transferring to another address than the wallet address, etc.).

As a result, the bridge is not fully decentralized.

  • There are five public and well-known relayers, namely Zokyo, Bitcoin Exchange, ChartEx, Avalaunch, and Bridge Mutual.
  • One cannot decide to become a relayer for the Relay bridge from one day to the next (= like in a fully decentralized system). To ensure that requirements like infrastructure are secure, up to scratch to support the bridge volume, and not running into any problems, the team appoints them not running subpar equipment which would slow down the transactions.
  • As with the community, there is still a ticketing system where users can register issues and interact with the technical team. In a decentralized system, a user would be left to investigate an issue on their own without knowing who to turn to, nor any assurance that the issue would be resolved.

Integration of new chains – EVM compatibility #

A new chain that is EVM compatible is technically easier to add to the bridge portfolio than one that is not. The team is also looking into supporting non-EVM chains, such as Solana and other similar opportunities.

Gas tokens faucet #

The first time that a wallet transfers tokens to a chain, a drip of gas tokens (such as AVAX, HT, BNB, MATIC, MOVR, except ETH) is airdropped on the destination chain to allow for a few trades. Tokens are not stuck in a wallet and cannot be traded without going to a CEX and buying gas tokens first.

Updated on January 21, 2022
How do you feel about this article?
 

Leave a Reply

*Paid Advertisement. Not financial advice. RugDoc is not responsible for the projects showcased here. DYOR and ape safu.

Our mission here at RugDoc is to screen for hard rug code that results in 100% theft of ALL underlying funds for ALL participants.

This is the ONE part of the due diligence process that most people cannot simply do on their own as it costs thousands of dollars to hire a senior solidity developer to look over a farm for safety.

A project coin with terrible code can go up in price, and a project with good code and a good team can also go down in price.

Do NOT use our ratings to refer to your likelihood in making money if you invest in the project. They are ONLY in reference to code safety.

Everything else beyond code safety is YOUR responsibility to go do research on. We just make sure the casino you’re betting in won’t rob you before you even get to place a bet.

Our reviews for projects are organized into a few colors.

🟢 Least Risk
These projects are the least likely to hard or soft rug. Usually reserved for cornerstone projects of an ecosystem where it makes no financial sense for them to rug in any manner as they make more money just being legit.

🔵 Low Risk
These projects are usually established projects in an ecosystem that have a track record of success or have KYC’d to us or other authoritative sources in the real world. As a result, it is extremely unlikely for them to soft rug or hard rug their projects. The projects can still fail and the token price can go down, but usually more as a result of natural market forces.

⚪️ Some Risk
This is the default rating for projects with unknown teams but have code that is unlikely to have hard rug risk. Since the team is unknown and doesn’t have a track record of success, it’s entirely possible that they may try to soft rug by dumping tokens, abandoning the project, etc. Even a last minute contract swap to a malicious contract is possible. The only thing that is unlikely is a complete hard rug as long as you are 100% sure you deposit into the contract we review.

🟠 Medium Risk
Similar to Some Risk, but the underlying code itself is custom enough or complex enough that it warrants an elevated risk rating that needs deeper research. Make sure you read every point presented to make sure you’re comfortable with that before entering. Still unlikely to hard rug, but more chances of custom code behaving incorrectly and causing other issues.

🔴 High Risk
Project contains code or practices that are HIGHLY LIKELY to lead to catastrophic losses as they are right now. Make sure you read the description carefully as we will always warn what these issues are. If you see the words Hard Rug anywhere in the review, STAY FAR AWAY!

⚫️ Not Eligible
We reserve the right to not review exceedingly complex projects that would require tens of thousands of dollars of senior security analyst man hours. Typically these are projects that deal with leverage, lending, options, derivatives, and anything that is overly complex and which requires tons of peer reviews and audits from top audit companies.

Search

🟢 For owners who have made impactful changes and would like an update to their farm review:

1️⃣ Use #update at @RugDocChat with your description and proof of changes and it will be forwarded to our scanners.

2️⃣ This does not guarantee a change in your review.

3️⃣ Owners who have difficulty solving the issues can consider our Consultation Package - please contact @BaymaxCrypto on Telegram to discuss.