In cross-chain interactions, security often becomes a post-hoc remedy. However, some projects choose to go against the grain and redefine protection mechanisms from the underlying architecture.
The key to this approach lies in the proactive security philosophy:
Continuous monitoring throughout the entire process, not just during transaction settlement. User intent protection ensures that instructions are not tampered with or misappropriated. From a mechanism design perspective, countering MEV attacks makes greed too costly.
In other words, it’s not about passively responding to risks, but about plugging vulnerabilities before threats arise. This approach provides valuable insights for the entire cross-chain ecosystem.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
17 Likes
Reward
17
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
bridgeOops
· 12h ago
The proactive defense approach is indeed comfortable, much better than being a "Zhuge Liang" after the fact... Just worried it might be another PPT project.
View OriginalReply0
FallingLeaf
· 12h ago
This is the right way. Front-end protection is much more reliable than firefighting after the fact.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeNightmare
· 13h ago
The proactive safety logic is indeed well-designed, but how many projects in reality have actually achieved it? Or is it just another PPT plan?
View OriginalReply0
JustHereForAirdrops
· 13h ago
Wow, finally someone has thought of addressing the root cause. Those previous projects were really armchair strategizing after the fact.
View OriginalReply0
StablecoinGuardian
· 13h ago
The idea of proactive protection is indeed excellent, but how many projects can truly be implemented?
View OriginalReply0
StableBoi
· 13h ago
It should have been done this way from the start. Passive patching is annoying; it's better to design it like a fortress from the beginning.
In cross-chain interactions, security often becomes a post-hoc remedy. However, some projects choose to go against the grain and redefine protection mechanisms from the underlying architecture.
The key to this approach lies in the proactive security philosophy:
Continuous monitoring throughout the entire process, not just during transaction settlement. User intent protection ensures that instructions are not tampered with or misappropriated. From a mechanism design perspective, countering MEV attacks makes greed too costly.
In other words, it’s not about passively responding to risks, but about plugging vulnerabilities before threats arise. This approach provides valuable insights for the entire cross-chain ecosystem.