rhino.fi is a Layer 2 bridge for effortless multi-chain token movement
Volume
$258M
Supported chains
Due to the way Rhinofi is built on top of StarkEx, it is difficult on some chains like Ethereum to correctly determine which transactions are for bridging and which are deposits into the roll up for other purposes. For this reason, the volumes are likely to be under counted.
Auction
Auction Design
Intent-centric protocols like utilise a variety of auction mechanisms designed to optimise order execution either in terms of execution quality or speed. By matching buyers and sellers directly without the need for an intermediary liquidity pool the protocols can reduce the impact of front-running and slippage. The design of the auction is crucial because it creates different incentives for Fillers as well as different trade-offs depending on the exact mechanisms used. Commonly used auctions like FCFS are easy for protocols to run and result in fast order execution, however the lack the RFQ-like bid auction window that would allow multiple Fillers to compete with each other on execution quality.
-
The bridging process involves the user giving rhino.fi assets on their origin chain and rhino.fi providing their desired assets on their destination chain. The protocol operates a single filler that executes all orders.
Auction Openness
The openness of an auction is important in ensuring the trustworthiness of the result and proving there is no collusion between the protocol and Fillers. Open auctions allow all participants to see the auction process in real-time and verify the outcome. This transparency ensures that all bids are considered fairly, the auction rules are followed and the winning bid is the result of a fair and competitive process.
Poor
The protocol operates a single filler that executes all orders.
Fillers
Open participation
Whilst most protocols are open and encourage free permissionless participation by any entity wishing to contribute bids for orderflow, some may require Fillers to apply and be whitelisted before they can access orderflow. Having a permissioned system increases risks of centralisation and heightens the risk of Censorship and amplifies the consequences of Filler Failure since it is not straight forward to for a new entity step in to provide bids for 'stuck' orders should no Fillers be available.
Poor
No mechanism exists for other fillers to solve orderflow originating from rhino.fi as the order expression information is incomplete and no mechanism exists for refunding of inventory filled by other entities.
Risks
Censorship
When interacting with entirely blockchain resident programs (i.e. smart contracts) all transaction originating addresses have theoretically equal opportunity to obtain service (gas fees and block building stages notwithstanding). Intent based protocols incur additional practical complexities and, coupled with a lack of standarisation between how intents are expressed, auctions are run and how Fillers obtain information about orders to fill, results in additional layers of infrastructure needing to be created. Largely, these additional layers are not implemented fully on chain and / or rely on messaging passing mechanisms which can further widen the ways that participation can be limited. Performing some of the calculation, matching or execution logic off chain introduces a potential source of centralisation. Centralisation negates the guarantees of a decentralised system where if only a single participant is acting honestly and rationally, there is a level playing field for all. Depending on the design of an protocol, centralisation can occur through multiple mechanisms like off chain order advertising, order-bid matching, auction execution, cross-chain message passing, permissioned relayers or executors and others.
Poor
Since the only running filler belongs to the protocol, there is no censorship resistance.
Filler failure
Intent centric protocols require a Filler to submit a bid and execute transfers / actions that a user order specifies. Without at least one Filler facilitating orders, an Intent based protocol is unable to offer a service to users. Having no Fillers to facilitate an order (or all orders) is a existential risk factor for the protocol which is usually mitigated by the protocol running their own simplistic Filler to provide a minimum level of service. However, should there be no Fillers available to satisfy an order or, if all Fillers decline to service a particular order, there is the potential for an order to be trapped in-flight unless another Filler steps in or the facilitating protocol has an “escape hatch” mechanism for the order originator to cancel their order and have their funds returned.
Average
Since the only running filler belongs to the protocol, were this or the off-chain infra to fail there would be no way for a user to complete a bridging operation. rhino.fi is built on StarkEx which provides some mechanism for users to withdraw funds to Ethereum L1 in the event the operator goes offline providing some limited recovery options.
Gas paid vs Fees earned
Profitability of filling
The chart below shows the relationship between the fees earned by fillers and the gas paid by them. Gas fees often eat into margin. As these lines converge, intent based systems may or may not see a degradation in filler competition.
XAxis - Date
YAxis - USD
Inspired by the work done by Flashbots and L2Beat.
The goal of this open dashboard (see Contributing) is to facilitate open discussion and publish research grounded in real world data to accelerate development of protocols that solve UX, capital efficiency and execution quality issues.
We take a credibly neutral unopinionated stance and present information based upon deep research and on-chain data to help our community draw their own conclusions.