Solv Protocol strikes $700M in tokenized Bitcoin infrastructure from LayerZero to Chainlink

  • Solv Protocol migrates wrapped BTC infrastructure from LayerZero to Chainlink CCIP.
  • The transfer adopted a $292 million Kelp DAO exploit involving a bridge system powered by LayerZero.
  • Solv is phasing out LayerZero bridge help for Corn, Berachain, Rootstock, and TAC.

Solv Protocol is migrating over $700 million of tokenized Bitcoin infrastructure from LayerZero as latest bridge exploits put elevated stress on cross-chain safety programs.

The protocol has confirmed that Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) will develop into the default cross-chain layer for SolvBTC and xSolvBTC transfers throughout supported networks.

As a part of the transition, Solv will take away LayerZero bridge help for Corn, Berachain, Rootstock, and TAC. The corporate stated the transfer follows an overhaul of its bridge safety requirements following a number of latest cross-chain assaults.

Solv Protocol runs a Bitcoin-focused DeFi product constructed round SolvBTC, a wrapped Bitcoin asset that enables customers to maneuver BTC liquidity between totally different blockchains whereas incomes yield.

Chief Expertise Officer Will Wang stated the transition was constructed round decreasing bridge threat and enhancing safety assurance for customers shifting belongings between chains.

The corporate described Chainlink’s CCIP as a extra battle-tested infrastructure layer with stronger protection programs and organization-level safety.

Kelp DAO exploits LayerZero stress enhance

The transfer comes weeks after attackers exfiltrated roughly $292 million from infrastructure linked to Kelp DAO, which relied on LayerZero bridge expertise.

Kelp DAO subsequently confirmed plans emigrate the rsETH bridge system to Chainlink CCIP as properly.

The April exploit was one of many greatest bridge-related assaults of the yr. Subsequent studies revealed that the attackers transferred the stolen rsETH to Aave v3 as collateral earlier than some funds had been frozen.

LayerZero attributed the assault to North Korea’s Lazarus Group and claimed that Kelp DAO was utilizing an unsafe single-verifier configuration as a substitute of the beneficial multi-validator safety.

Kelp DAO rejected that rationalization and accused LayerZero of approving the identical validation construction earlier than the exploit occurred.

The dispute stays unresolved. LayerZero CEO Bryan Pellegrino stated Kelp has moved away from safer default settings, whereas Kelp argued that many LayerZero functions run on the same single validation system.

Safety researchers then added additional stress to the talk. OpenZeppelin stated there is no such thing as a public proof of direct good contract failure within the Kelp DAO exploit. Somewhat, the corporate stated the problem seems to be associated to bridge operations, integration programs, and message validation infrastructure.

It is very important notice that Solv’s transition announcement doesn’t instantly criticize LayerZero. The corporate as a substitute pointed to “latest cross-chain hacks” and in depth safety critiques throughout the trade.

Chainlink Labs stated Solv’s transition displays a broader development inside decentralized finance, the place protocols select infrastructure suppliers with stronger safety ensures.

Chief Enterprise Officer Johan Eid stated Chainlink CCIP is now enjoying an more and more vital position in making certain the security of large-scale cross-chain asset transfers.

This transition additionally strengthens Chainlink’s place throughout the Bitcoin-based DeFi market, the place wrapped BTC programs rely closely on safe communication between a number of blockchains.

Associated: Frozen kelp DAO ETH arbitration award sparks US authorized dispute over North Korea’s claims

Disclaimer: The knowledge contained on this article is for informational and academic functions solely. This text doesn’t represent monetary recommendation or recommendation of any sort. Coin Version is just not accountable for any losses incurred because of the usage of the content material, merchandise, or companies talked about. We encourage our readers to do their due diligence earlier than taking any motion associated to our firm.