metadata: {"title": "CrossSync Protocol", "logoImg": "bafkreigcowufhglmbvmwxqoqmxqajif3ilr45iqr2epej2cofstloj6bqu", "website": "https://crosssync.network", "bannerImg": "bafkreih5nif6eh3jfgm7mxzte6hw3kv5e5ledrecj7xzd3lsha4hmvyzte", "createdAt": 1714116834559, "userGithub": "mbcse", "credentials": {}, "description": "A cross-chain messengers aggregator protocol that provides a common interface to connect to multiple messaging protocols to send cross-chain contract calls and liquidity across many chains\n\nVideo Demo: https://www.loom.com/share/dfed8249187e4150b8041c296999b19f?sid=531f7130-722b-4038-83f7-ea4b71cf7941\n\n\n# The problem we are trying to solve :\n\nIn the ever-growing world of blockchain, with new blockchains popping up all the time, we must make sure we can easily work across different chains and handle the increasing demands for new blockchains and liquidity. If data and money are spread out on many chains without an easy way to connect them, it makes things tough for users, especially for developers and dApps working in the blockchain space.\n\nWe've got these things called Cross Chain Messenger Protocols to help with this. They let us call smart contracts on different chains and move funds around in a decentralized way. They've done a good job solving the interoperability problem, but there's still a hitch \u2013 scalability and availability of these protocols on the chains that dApp developers want to use. Confused? Let me break it down.\n\nThere are a bunch of interoperability protocols out there like Hyperlane, Connext, Axelar, ChainLink CCIP, and more. But here's the issue:\n\n1. **Limited Chain Support:**\n    - Not all protocols support every chain, leading to a fragmented landscape where specific interoperability solutions cater to only a subset of chains.\n2. **Varied Fee Structures:**\n    - Divergent fee models across protocols introduce complexities for users. Some protocols impose high fees on certain networks, while others maintain lower fees, creating inconsistency and unpredictability.\n3. **Syntax and Implementation Disparity:**\n    - Each protocol employs a distinct syntax for contract implementation, adding a layer of complexity for developers. This diversity complicates the integration process and demands specialized expertise.\n4. **Payment Currency Disparities:**\n    - Protocols differ in the payment currencies they support, further complicating cross-chain transactions. This diversity necessitates adjustments in payment methods, leading to increased friction and potential errors.\n5. **Limited Accessibility:**\n    - The protocols are not readily available for seamless incorporation into various chains, making the integration process cumbersome and time-consuming for developers.\n\nThere are other problems too, but these make things hard for developers and users. Imagine a dApp that wants interoperability on chain1, chain2, and chain3. The problem is Hyperlane only works on chain1, Connext on chain2, and Axelar on chain3. So, if a developer wants interoperability features in their smart contracts, they have to deal with all three services, which are different in how they work, the fees they charge, and how you pay. That makes it pretty much unusable for them. That's where we come in \u2013 we're working on a solution to fix this mess.\n\n# The Solution (CrossSync Protocol)\n\nTo address these challenges and provide a common Interface and Gateway for interacting with multiple messaging interoperability protocols CrossSync has been made, With this users only need to implement and interact with CrossSync Protocol Gateway. They have to call the sendMessage function of the CrossSync Gateway and specify the route ID for sending messages, for example, 1 for Using Axelar, 2 for CCIP, 3 for Connext, 4 for Hyperlane, and 5 for Wormhole, and so on\u2026. CrossSync Protocol handles the rest and converts all the payload into the payload required for the messenger protocol, you don't have to bother about different kinds of domain IDs, chain names, etc. Additionally, users no longer have to implement individual interfaces to receive messages on the destination chain. A single receiveMessage function is all they need to integrate for receiving the payload.\n\n### Benefits\n\n- A common relayer fee makes it easy for developers to integrate any of these protocols with ease and less hassle.\n- Many of these protocols are available on different kinds of chains, ones you combine all of them into the same protocol, you can have cross-chain messaging available on almost all chains now\n- With Auto Routing users get the lowest fees for cross-chain calls if many protocols are available on the same chain.\n- The design of this protocol has been kept modular, any protocol can be integrated easily by just deploying an implementation contract for it.\n- This protocol benefits users as well as developers from the perspective of UI, Fees, ease of use, ease of integration, etc.\n- Completely on-chain and handled by smart contracts in a secure way\n- With the introduction of the CSYNC token, users can pay fees in this single common token, get low fees discount and developers just need to implement this single token for handling fee payments\n\n\nWe have been Winners at Multiple hackathons like ethoxford, ethglobal, etc. We have received great feedback from the community and chains!", "logoImgData": {}, "bannerImgData": {}, "projectGithub": "mbcse/CrossSync", "projectTwitter": "crosssync"}
name: CrossSync Protocol