MAP vs other cross-chain solutions without relay chain

Comparisons between MAP Protocol and other lightweight cross-chain solutions with no relay chain

  • The above lightweight solutions, including MAP Protocol, achieved cross-chain functionality by deploying cross-chain communication components on-chain or inter-chain, which are better solutions than Cosmos & Polkadot (require embedding SDK to the bottom layer of the blockchain);

  • MPC (Multi-Party Computation) technology is easy to develop but has obvious security risks.

  • Using Oracle to conduct cross-chain verification is ambiguity , and the risk of colluding with messengers always exists.

  • Using Light-client to conduct cross-chain verification is the ultimate security mechanism adopted in MAP Protocol, Cosmos, and Polkadot.

  • The Light-client verification mechanism will lead to massive consumption of gas fees for cross-chain activities between heterogeneous chains. The better way is to use a relay chain, compatible with multiple chains' algorithm, thus enabling a homogeneous cross-chain and forming the ultimate cross-chain verification network. MAP Protocol has developed the MAP Relay Chain as such.

  • As the cross-chain asset and data assembly, MAP Relay Chain supports the native deployment of omnichain dApps, including cross-chain bridge applications, differentiating MAP Protocol from all the other competitors.

Last updated