The cross-chain version of USDT, is USDT0 reliable?

Didn’t Uni need to restart liquidity mining at 4.15? This time, there were 12 pools, many of which were $USDT0-related pools. So I will take this opportunity to talk about USDT0.

First of all, what is USDT0?

To put it bluntly, it is the cross-chain version of USDT. The parent asset USDT exists on ETH, and cross-chain to other chains through Layer0, it becomes USDT0.

Those that support USDT0 can also cross each other, such as ETH-Arb-Unichain-Bear Chain-megaETH, etc.

Who is the team behind USDT0?

This is the most Tricky, and it took me a long time to figure it out.

Behind this project, 1+3 companies are the joint efforts of:

1. It is led by Everdawn Labs;

2.1 The underlying technology used is Layer0;

2.2 Obtained the endorsement of Tether;

2.3 I got the endorsement of the INK public chain (this is a chain sent by Kraken).

However, there is no clue on the Internet who Everdawn Labs is.

I reasonably suspect that it is Tether's vest.

This is quite consistent with their tone:

If nothing happened - then everyone will enjoy the multi-chain convenience of USDT normally;

If something goes wrong - that's Everdawn Labs's pot, it has nothing to do with Tether.

One of the reasons for this speculation is that after USDT0 came out this year, Tether immediately expressed support, and then Bitfinex also issued a special article to interpret it. Without strong relationships, they (BF and Tether) will not give such support.

How to evaluate it?

I think if Tether makes this bridge myself, I think it will definitely be a great achievement. This will allow USDTs of each chain to cross losses, saving all kinds of sand sculptures and three-party cross-chain bridges.

However, I have limited trust in Layer0.

In the past, there were many cases of top cross-chain bridge failures. From multichain to thorchain, there was no threshold for cross-chain technology, it was just a sign-up.

In the past, USDT took official bridges, not three-sided bridges like L0.

Official bridges are generally safer, but the disadvantage is their dispersion of liquidity.

For example, if you want to cross the OP from Arb and loser, you must return to ETH and then go to the OP. If you go to the three parties faster, you will have to spend money.

PS: Not to mention that there are also scam-free public chains like Sei, and the official bridges are charged for entering and exiting.

If you follow the USDT0 solution, Arb can go directly to the OP, without loss, in seconds.

PS: Of course, there is another historical problem here for OP, that is, USDT on OP is the old version of ETH cross-chain version, and it has not been unified with USDT0, the youth version of ETH cross-chain version, so the name of Arb cross-OP is feasible, but it was actually useless in the past. Here is just an example.

The new public chain supports USDT0 at the beginning and has no historical problems, so it has much higher availability.

but!

The Tether official is reluctant to come out to make this bridge in person, so he insists on sending Everdawn Labs out, which is a bit...

In the past, when I dig $UNI on ETH, I only had to bear two small third-party risks, Tether and Uniswap. Now I have to bear another 4 more, namely:

• Everdawn
• L0 Don't make a fuss
• Unichain
• USDT0 supports N other public chains and each company will be unsuccessful.

It sounds a bit big.