Hyperprover Routes

Issues with Storage Proofs

While storage proofs come with a host of advantages and are trust-minimized, they create some disadvantages that create poor user experience and unnecessary cost for users who are making low-value cross-chain payments.

1. Expense: Storage proofs require extreme amounts of calldata and are computationally expensive. This means that a full end-to-end intent fulfillment (without shared proof overhead) costs an order of magnitude more than a centralized service might provide. While this is appropriate for large value stablecoin transfers, this overhead is prohibitive for normal everyday payments.

2. Speed: Storage roots also require sequencers to post their block roots on a regular cadence. For the Bedrock implementation, standard providers post their roots approximately once an hour, while some are even less frequent. As a result user funds are, at minimum, locked up for for several hours, causing fillers to have to wait a long time to get their funds back.

Hyperprover Routes

As discussed in the prover contract section, the ability for intent creators to specify which prover contracts they would like to use to validate fulfillment of their intents allows for the protocol to be extended to support cheaper and faster settlement options.

As part of the Beta launch, Eco intends to add a Hyperlane route to offer an affordable option for low-value stablecoin transfers. The Hyperlane message bridge will communicate the successful fulfillment of intents straight to a proof contract, reducing the cost associated with claiming intent rewards. The message bridge will be secured by either a validator network or an EigenLayer AVS.