Recently, the AltVMs project Catalyst, which at first glance has a very MEME-like UI style, has launched its mainnet. However, upon reviewing the official technical documentation, it becomes clear that it is not simple. It aims to provide a multi-chain interoperability liquidity solution connecting EVM, SVM, MoveVM, and the BTC network, and belongs to the intent-based trading sector. How should we understand this? Here are a few highlights summarized:

1) Intent-based trading projects do not overly emphasize the technical complexity of "cross-chain" but focus more on the execution of cross-chain intent orders and the realization of results. Users initiate orders on the "source chain," and the Solver executes the order based on the order description. As long as the remote chain can verify/prove the validity of the transaction, it can be included in the order exchange scope.

Therefore, although such projects fall under the "chain abstraction" category from the perspective of liquidity aggregation, it would be more appropriate to define Catalyst as a cross-chain AMM automated trading system.

2) CrossCats is the latest cross-chain bridge product launched by Catalyst, capable of connecting various isomorphic or heterogeneous clients (altVMs) and only follows one "provable" logic. Common cross-chain intent trading mainly includes:

1. Transactions between EVM chains, such as from Ethereum to Base chain, managed entirely by the contract system. The user signs the transaction order -> Solver claims the order and provides collateral -> The source chain locks the user's authorized assets -> The Solver completes the order execution on the target chain through an oracle contract -> After execution, the locked assets are released and settled for the user.
2. Transactions from EVM chains to other VM chains (SVM, MoveVM, etc.), which also belong to the category of isomorphic chains executing automatically based on smart contracts. However, a provable verification mechanism needs to be implemented on non-EVM chains, establishing corresponding oracles and verification contracts. The logic for signing, locking, executing, and settling other orders is similar to transactions between EVM chains.
3. Transactions between Bitcoin and VM chains, such as from Bitcoin to Ethereum or Solana. Since Bitcoin cannot manage smart contracts, a Pseudo Solver handling solution is required. The user first collects reverse orders provided by real Solvers -> The real Solver signs the reverse order -> The user claims the order and obtains assets on the VM chain -> The user actively initiates a transfer transaction to a specific address within a limited time -> The entire transaction process is completed through state verification using Bitcoin SPV light clients.

Transactions between EVM chains have the simplest virtual machine processing environment. Other isomorphic chains that support smart contracts require a specific cross-chain proof mechanism, while the more complex transactions mainly involve Bitcoin, which requires the use of SPV client verification logic, necessitating special handling in oracle, asset locking, and other aspects.

3) After matching and executing transaction orders based on the provable mechanism, the issue of capital efficiency needs to be considered, including sharing management mechanisms, oracle optimization, and so on.

For example, the rules for locking and releasing funds will directly affect capital efficiency. CrossCats allows users to lock liquidity funds only briefly during the actual trading process (minimizing locking) without needing to pre-lock them, in order to maximize the efficiency of capital use.

Additionally, CrossCats has designed a multi-tiered payment release scheme to balance efficiency and risk. It also employs three release schemes: source chain optimistic payment, target chain verification, and underwriting mechanism.

Optimistic payment assumes the transaction state is executed normally, releasing funds first and then ensuring safety through pre-staked assets and a dispute challenge window; target chain verification requires the remote chain to provide proof to the source chain; the underwriting mechanism shifts part of the order responsibility to other participants to enhance matching efficiency.

That’s all.

As I mentioned in a previous comment on the reversal of sanctions against Tornado, with the resolution of on-chain privacy solutions, intent-based trading will be a potentially rapidly growing narrative new sector.

In this process, achieving cross-chain circulation of assets is just the foundation. How to optimize the losses and efficiency in cross-chain asset transactions, how to resist the timeliness issues of oracle price feeds under market fluctuations, and how to enrich the execution logic of transactions to enhance the automated experience are all challenges that intent-based trading needs to tackle.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。