Layer2 Cross-Chain Bridge Battle Orbiter VS Layerswap, which one is more user-friendly?

Battle Orbiter VS Layerswap Which is more user-friendly?

Author: Biteye Core Contributor Crush

In the current rich on-chain ecosystem, cross-chain bridges have become an indispensable part of the entire ecosystem. Despite frequent news of cross-chain bridge thefts, they still provide convenience for users’ asset transfers.

With the development of Ethereum layer 2 networks such as Arbitrum and Optimism, cross-chain bridges that focus on asset transfers between L2s are gradually emerging. In this article, we will introduce two very practical cross-chain bridges – Orbiter and Layerswap.

By introducing the principles, operations, and some details of these two cross-chain bridges, we can understand the current status of layer 2 cross-chain bridges and make optimal choices when performing cross-chain transfers.

• Introducing the Aztec sorter’s selection for the RFP finals: B52 and Fernet
• Is RWA the next growth engine for DeFi?
• $MATIC has been upgraded to $POL

01. Why choose Layerswap and Orbiter

Some readers may wonder why we are introducing only these two cross-chain bridges out of the many available on the market. There is a deeper meaning behind this, so let me explain.

Official endorsement

First of all, what is most important for a cross-chain bridge? I say it’s security, and I don’t think anyone would disagree! As an asset transfer tool, a cross-chain bridge is like an ancient escort transporting goods, so security is of utmost importance. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, there have been various cases of cross-chain bridge thefts. An insecure cross-chain bridge, even if it offers lower transaction fees, will definitely not be used by users.

By visiting the official websites of zkSync and Starknet, it is clear to see that these two cross-chain bridges are prominently recommended by the official sources. With official endorsement, their credibility naturally increases.

Airdrop expectations

As a Web3 user, airdrops are rewards that you shouldn’t miss out on. Among all airdrops, airdrops from public chains are usually the most generous and have the widest coverage. Currently, the two most anticipated airdrops from public chains are zkSync and Starknet.

If you want to receive airdrops from these two chains, you will need to experience their ecosystems. Orbiter and Layerswap have already positioned themselves on these two chains, making it very convenient for users to transfer assets from other chains to zkSync and Starknet.

In addition, neither of these two projects has conducted airdrops themselves. So if users prefer to try out new chains and prioritize using them, they can enjoy a two-fold benefit of receiving airdrops from both the public chain and the cross-chain bridge.

02. Principles and Operations

Introduction to Principles

1. Orbiter

As users, although we don’t need to fully understand every step of how a cross-chain bridge operates, it is still useful to learn the basic principles. After all, it concerns the security of our own funds, and understanding it can give us peace of mind when using it.

When Orbiter is conducting cross-chain operations, there are two roles: the Sender and the Maker. Before providing services to the cross-chain initiator, the Maker needs to deposit excess collateral in the Orbiter’s Maker collateral contract and deposit liquidity funds in the Maker address to ensure that the Sender’s funds can be cross-chained smoothly.

Assuming that we have a fund of 0.1 ETH that needs to be transferred from Arbitrum to zkSync, the normal process is for the Sender to send the funds to the Maker on Arbitrum. The Maker needs to know the target network, i.e., which chain the funds should be crossed to, as well as the amount and type of funds.

Once confirmed, the Maker will send an asset to your wallet on the target network, which in this case is zkSync, completing the entire cross-chain process.

The target network is distinguished using something called an Identification Code. This code is added to the last four digits of the transfer amount during cross-chain transactions. By checking this code, the Maker can confirm the target chain.

The Maker acts as an intermediary for funds throughout the cross-chain process. If the Maker fails to successfully send the Sender’s assets, the Sender can initiate an arbitration request to the Maker’s collateral contract (MDC) based on the identification code and other information provided by the transaction approval interface, and receive excess compensation.

2. Layerswap

Layerswap does not disclose much about the technical principles in its user manual, but based on its early cross-chain style, Layerswap is different from Orbiter mentioned above.

At the beginning of Layerswap’s launch, the second layer network was not mature yet. Many users who wanted to experience second layers like Arbitrum and Optimism had to withdraw funds from exchanges to the Ethereum mainnet first, and then use the official cross-chain bridge to cross-chain assets to the second layer.

At that time, Layerswap introduced a tool called Bransfer and registered its own account on major exchanges. If users need to cross-chain ETH to the second layer network, they only need to transfer the assets to Layerswap’s exchange account, and then Layerswap will send a fund to your target address on the second layer network.

Since there is no transaction fee for internal transfers within exchanges, you only need to pay the fee for the second layer transfer, plus some fees charged by Layerswap, which is relatively cheap.

How is the internal transfer confirmed? This is where Bransfer comes in. Users need to apply for a read-only API at the exchange. Once Layerswap obtains your API, it can read your transfer data.

With the development of second layers, most exchanges now support deposits and withdrawals for Arbitrum and Optimism, and even the not-yet-launched zkSync and Starknet are gradually being supported.

Once exchanges support these second layers, Layerswap seems to lose its advantage. Therefore, in the latest version, v2, Layerswap has migrated Bransfer and turned it into a built-in feature, so users no longer need to register Bransfer.

In addition, due to the merger of the two, their transaction history has also been unified, and users can directly view it on Layerswap.

From the development history of Layerswap, combined with the current cross-chain fund limitations, we can speculate that it is highly likely that they still use their own funds to help users with cross-chain transactions and earn transaction fees.

Actual Operation

1. Orbiter

https://orbiter.finance

Here, I will demonstrate the cross-chain process from Arbitrum to zkSync Era. First, we open the Orbiter website, where we directly use the V2 version, which supports more cross-chain tokens.

As shown in the figure, the interface is very simple. Select the corresponding chain and token, and enter the quantity. The bottom will display how much GAS fee and time you have saved. If you want to see the actual cost, hover the mouse over the question mark to display the official cross-chain bridge fee and the fee for using Orbiter.

If you want to view your cross-chain history, you can click on “History” in the upper right corner. In addition to the cross-chain function, Orbiter has also launched an L2 data dashboard. Click on “L2 Data” in the upper left corner to see the overall transaction data of Layer 2 and the data of individual projects.

2. Layerswap

https://layerswap.io/app

Open the official website of Layerswap. Because it supports direct cross-chain transactions with exchanges, here we will try to cross-chain from OKX to zkSync Era.

After selecting OKX and zkSync Era, enter the amount to be cross-chained. The token type cannot be changed here, only ETH can be selected, and the maximum limit is 1 ETH.

There is a customer service button in the upper right corner. If there are any problems during the cross-chain process, you can directly contact them. You can also view the transaction history in the “Transfer” section.

The bottom will display the amount of tokens you will receive. Here, it shows that I will receive 0.99802 ETH, including 0.001198 ETH as Layerswap fee and 0.01 as Exchange fee.

For the receiving address, you can either fill in the same address as the sending address or customize another address, which is more convenient.

After clicking “Swap Now”, you will enter the transfer interface, where you need to withdraw 1 ETH from OKX and send it to the receiving address provided by Layerswap. The public chain for sending can be selected, with Arbitrum as the default to save transaction fees.

Once you have completed the process of withdrawing from the exchange to that address, this interface will automatically detect the arrival of the funds and then transfer this amount to your zkSync Era address.

03. Detailed Comparison

Number of Supported Public Chains

From the number of supported public chains, Layerswap has two more than Obiter, namely Solana and Avalanche, and supports cross-chain withdrawals from exchanges separately.

However, more doesn’t necessarily mean better. Solana, after the FTX crash, is no longer as active as before. The Avalanche ecosystem also doesn’t seem to have any particularly impressive projects, and the overall activity is relatively average. Therefore, the lack of support for these two chains is not a big problem for Orbiter.

Cross-chain Speed

In terms of cross-chain speed, we cross to zkSync Era from any chain.

Orbiter’s time is basically around 30 seconds, with the mainnet speed slightly slower, possibly taking 45 seconds, and it may take even longer if the mainnet is congested. The fastest is the BSC network, which only takes 15 seconds to cross-chain to zkSync Era.

Layerswap’s cross-chain speed is generally slower, taking about 2 minutes on average. Among them, the speed of cross-chain from Polygon to zkSync Era is the slowest, taking more than 1 hour.

Therefore, in terms of cross-chain speed, Orbiter is superior to Layerswap.

Cross-chain Fees

For most of the cross-chain fees between the second layers, Orbiter ranges from 2U to 4U, usually fixed. A few cross-chain fees increase with the increase in the amount of cross-chain, such as cross-chain from ETH to Arbitrum on zkSync Era.

When the cross-chain amount is 0.01 ETH, the fee is 2.47 U.

When we try to increase the cross-chain amount to 1 ETH, the cross-chain fee immediately increases to 4.43 U.

The fee for crossing to the mainnet is higher, starting at 14U, and the larger the cross-chain amount, the higher the fee, up to a maximum of 20U. There is no higher fee because Orbiter’s Maker has imposed restrictions on funds crossing to the mainnet, with a maximum of only 10E.

The cross-chain fees between the second layers of Layerswap are basically around 0.0016E, which is 3U. Regardless of changes in cross-chain funds, the fees remain relatively stable.

When we try to transfer funds from the second layer to the Ethereum mainnet, the fee is unexpectedly cheaper than transferring between the second layers. Overall, it can be observed that Layerswap’s cross-chain fees are relatively stable, similar to the withdrawal fees on exchanges.

Comparatively, in terms of cross-chain fees, Layerswap seems to have a slight advantage.

In addition to directly checking cross-chain fees on the cross-chain bridge, you can also use Chaineye to query cross-chain fees.

https://chaineye.tools/bridge

After opening the tool, enter the relevant information for cross-chain transactions, and you can easily query the fees of various cross-chain bridges with just one click.

The tool defaults to ranking based on fees from lowest to highest. You can change “cheapest” in the upper right corner to “fastest” to display the chain with the fastest speed.

(Ranked from fastest to slowest)

Security

From the principle mentioned above, Orbiter allows multiple well-funded liquidity providers to provide cross-chain liquidity for users on various chains through a whitelist mechanism. At the same time, it avoids the risk of inaction by liquidity providers after receiving funds through margin and arbitration mechanisms to ensure the security of user funds.

Compared to Layerswap, which has a single entity providing liquidity, the former seems to consider user fund security more comprehensively.

04. Summary

Based on the above discussion, we can use the following strategies to complete daily cross-chain transactions:

1. When the cross-chain funds are not large, prioritize using Layerswap. It has lower fees but slightly slower speed.

2. When the cross-chain funds are relatively large, prioritize using Orbiter. Orbiter clearly has more abundant liquidity and can meet the cross-chain needs of larger funds, while Layerswap has a limit of 1 ETH.

3. When there is a need to cross-chain from Layer 2 to the mainnet, prioritize using Layerswap, as the cost from Layer 2 to the mainnet is still the cheapest with Layerswap.

4. For users with funds on exchanges who want to directly cross-chain to the target chain, prioritize using Layerswap, as it is the only one that supports exchanges.

5. For users who prioritize time and security but do not care about fees, prioritize using Orbiter.

We will continue to update Blocking; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!