Striving for Cross-Chain Hyperlane
Project Fundamentals
Project Positioning
Hyperlane aims to address the core issues of cross-chain security and easy data sharing in the Web3 world. As the multi-chain ecosystem develops, interoperability between different blockchains becomes crucial. Traditional bridging technologies connect different chains, enabling token swaps and liquidity enhancements, but often face challenges in security, efficiency, and user experience. Hyperlane, through its permissionless interoperability layer, aims to provide a more generic, secure, and developer-friendly way to connect any L1, L2, or Rollup, breaking down the silos between chains.
Core Issues and Market Demand Matching:
There is currently a strong market demand for efficient and secure cross-chain solutions. DeFi applications require cross-chain liquidity aggregation and asset transfers; NFT projects wish to achieve cross-chain circulation and trading; GameFi applications seek to deploy assets and logic across different chains; and DAO governance may also require cross-chain execution of proposals. The permissionless and modular interoperability framework provided by Hyperlane directly meets these diverse market needs, allowing developers to customize security models and deployment instances based on their needs, thereby lowering the barriers to cross-chain development.
Competitive Landscape of Tracks:
The competition in cross-chain tracks is fierce, with major players including LayerZero, Wormhole, Axelar, and Chainlink CCIP.
LayerZero: Adopts ultra-light nodes (ULN) and oracle/relay architectures to provide messaging services. Similar to Hyperlane, it also emphasizes permissionlessness and modularity but differs in its security model and verification mechanisms.
Wormhole: Initially focused on the Solana ecosystem, later expanded to multi-chain. It uses a set of guardians to validate cross-chain messages, with security relying on the honest majority of the guardian network.
Axelar: Built an independent PoS chain (Axelar Network) as a hub for cross-chain communication, ensuring security through a validator network.
Chainlink CCIP: Utilizes its mature oracle network and risk management network to provide cross-chain messaging and token transfer services, with security relying on Chainlink's consensus mechanism and reputation.
Hyperlane's differentiation lies in its modular security design, allowing developers to choose or combine different security modules (Interchain Security Modules, ISMs) for specific applications, such as economic security (through staking), multi-signature verification, optimistic verification, etc. This flexibility allows Hyperlane to adapt to the security needs of different chains and applications, making it one of its core competitive advantages.
Innovative Assessment:
Technical Innovation:
Permissionless Deployment: Any developer can deploy Hyperlane on any chain that supports smart contracts without the core team's approval, greatly lowering the barrier to expand to new chains.
Modular Security (ISMs): Allows applications to customize the verification methods for cross-chain messages based on their needs, providing high flexibility and configurability of security.
Sovereign Consensus: Applications can fully control their security models without relying on external validator sets or third-party chains' consensus, enhancing the autonomy and security of applications.
Technical Architecture
The core architecture of Hyperlane revolves around messaging, aiming to achieve secure communication between arbitrary blockchains.
Core Components:
Mailboxes:
Smart contracts deployed on each chain supported by Hyperlane.
Act as endpoints for sending (dispatch) and receiving (process) cross-chain messages.
When sending messages, the Mailbox packages the message content, target chain, recipient address, and other information and triggers an event.
When receiving messages, the Mailbox verifies the source and integrity of the message and passes it to the target application (Recipient).
Warp Routes:
Hyperlane's native token bridging implementation built on top of Mailbox.
Allows ERC20 tokens (or native tokens) to be wrapped into a standard format for cross-chain transfer.
Utilizes Mailbox to send token transfer messages and mints or unlocks corresponding wrapped tokens on the target chain.
Provides a permissionless way to bridge any token.
Interchain Security Modules (ISMs):
Core components that define how cross-chain messages are validated.
Each receiving application (Recipient) can specify an ISM to validate incoming messages.
Hyperlane provides a variety of pre-built ISMs, and developers can also create custom ISMs:
Multisig ISM: Requires a threshold number of signatures from a specified group of validators (controlled by the application or DAO) for a message.
Optimistic ISM: Assumes messages are valid unless proven fraudulent during a challenge period. Relies on one or more observers (Watchtowers) to monitor messages and submit fraud proofs.
Aggregation ISM: Allows combining multiple ISMs, requiring all or any one ISM to validate.
Routing ISM: Acts as a dispatcher. It can route validation tasks to different ISMs based on the source chain or sender address of the message. This allows applications to apply different security policies for messages from different sources. For example, messages from highly trusted chains may only require simple validation, while messages from higher-risk chains may require stricter multisig or aggregation validation.
Validators:
Responsible for observing Mailbox events (message sending) on the source chain.
Sign the observed messages, proving their confirmation on the source chain.
The signed messages are then submitted to the target chain by the Relayer.
The role and security of validators are defined by the chosen ISM. For example, in a Multisig ISM, validators are designated multisig members; in an Optimistic ISM, theoretically anyone can be a validator (though typically run by the application), but security relies on Watchtowers.
Relayers:
Responsible for transmitting messages signed by validators from the source chain to the target chain's Mailbox.
Relayers do not participate in the validation of messages; they are solely responsible for message transmission.
Anyone can run a Relayer, and the Hyperlane team also provides a default Relayer service.
Watchtowers:
Play a key role in Optimistic ISM.
Monitor messages submitted to the target chain by Validators.
Check the authenticity of these messages on the source chain. If a Validator submits an invalid or fraudulent message, the Watchtower will submit a fraud proof to the target chain's Mailbox during the challenge period, preventing the message from being processed and potentially punishing the malicious Validator.
Message Lifecycle:
Dispatch: Users or applications call the dispatch function of the Mailbox on the source chain, specifying the target chain, recipient address, and message content.
Observe & Sign: Validators observe the Dispatch events emitted by the source chain Mailbox, validate the finality of the message, and sign the message using their private keys.
Relay: Relayers obtain the signed messages from Validators and submit them to the process function of the target chain Mailbox.
Verify: The target chain Mailbox verifies the message and signature submitted by the Relayer based on the ISM specified by the recipient.
Process: If the ISM verification passes, the Mailbox calls the handle function of the recipient contract to pass the message content to the target application.
Protocol Design:
Hyperlane's protocol design emphasizes modularity and permissionlessness.
Modularity: Mainly reflected in its ISM design. Applications can combine different security modules like building with LEGO to meet specific security needs and trust assumptions. For example, a high-value DeFi application might choose an aggregation ISM that requires validation from multiple independent security modules (like Multisig ISM + Optimistic ISM), while a low-risk application might only use a simple Multisig ISM.
Permissionlessness: Anyone can:
Deploy Hyperlane's core contracts (Mailbox) on any EVM-compatible chain (and potentially other types of chains in the future).
Run Validators to sign messages for specific applications or all applications (depending on ISM configuration).
Run Relayers to transmit messages.
Run Watchtowers to monitor Optimistic ISM.
Deploy Warp Routes to bridge any tokens.
This permissionless feature allows Hyperlane to quickly scale to new blockchain ecosystems without waiting for core team integration.
Smart Contract Design:
Hyperlane's core smart contracts mainly include:
Mailbox.sol: Implements the logic for sending, receiving, and verifying messages, serving as the core entry point of the protocol.
InterchainSecurityModule.sol (interface and various implementations): Defines the validation logic, such as MultisigIsm.sol, OptimisticIsm.sol, etc.
MessageRecipient.sol (interface): Applications need to implement the handle function of this interface to receive and process cross-chain messages.
Warp Route Related Contracts (e.g., ERC20WarpImplementation.sol): Handle the locking, minting, burning, and releasing logic of tokens.
Protocol Economics and Incentive Mechanisms (HYPER Token)
Hyperlane introduces its native token HYPER, aiming to coordinate the incentive mechanisms within the ecosystem, empower the community, and secure cross-chain communication.
HYPER Token Overview
Core Function: HYPER is used to secure the Hyperlane protocol through staking and reward network participants who contribute to protocol activity.
Multi-Chain Presence: HYPER exists on multiple networks, including Ethereum Mainnet, Base, OP Mainnet, Arbitrum One, and BSC.
Goal: To coordinate incentives for protocol security, reliability, and adoption, making Hyperlane a community-owned open interoperability standard.
Staking and Security
HYPER plays a core role in ensuring the security of Hyperlane, especially for the Default Interchain Security Module (Default ISM).
Validator Staking: Default ISM validators qualify by staking HYPER. The amount staked is part of the basis for selecting validators.
User Staking: Ordinary users can also stake HYPER (or receive liquid staking tokens stHYPER) to provide economic security for the default ISM and delegate to one or more validators.
Rewards:
Validator Rewards: As part of the default ISM validator set, validators earn protocol rewards for validating cross-chain messages.
Staker Rewards: Users holding stHYPER are eligible for proportional staking rewards (after deducting validator fees). Rewards are distributed per epoch (approximately 30 days), calculated based on the amount and duration of staking.
Slashing Mechanism: To ensure validators act honestly, the protocol has designed a slashing mechanism. If validators misbehave (for example, signing invalid messages or censoring messages), their staked HYPER will be slashed. This imposes economic costs for malicious actions.
Participant Incentives
Hyperlane's economic model is designed to incentivize participation from various roles:
Validators:
Default ISM Validators: Earn protocol rewards by staking HYPER and correctly validating messages.
Application-Specific Validators (Non-Default ISM): Their incentive mechanisms are defined by the applications deploying the ISM, which may not directly involve HYPER tokens, but rather the application's own tokens or other forms of rewards.
Stakers: Provide economic security for the default ISM by staking HYPER (earning stHYPER) and proportionally earn staking rewards.
Relayers:
Basic Messaging: The core responsibility of Relayers is to transmit validated messages. Their basic incentives may come from a portion of the cross-chain gas fees paid by users to cover their costs in submitting transactions on the target chain.
Warp Route Incentives: For Warp Routes (token bridging), Relayers may have additional incentives. For example, they can earn fees from the volume of bridged transactions, receive protocol subsidies, or participate in liquidity provision for FastTokenRouter.
Watchtowers:
Current Status: According to the documentation, Watchtowers are intended to monitor the Mailbox and validator signatures for malicious behavior (censorship, message forgery), but as of the time of search, this functionality has not been fully implemented.
Potential Incentives: Once implemented, the incentive mechanisms for Watchtowers may include rewards for successfully submitting fraud proofs (possibly from slashed validator deposits) or funding support from applications relying on Optimistic ISM.
Developers/Applications: Build cross-chain applications through Hyperlane, enjoying its permissionless and modular convenience. An ecosystem fund may provide funding to incentivize early adoption.
Users: Pay cross-chain fees to use Hyperlane for messaging or asset transfers.
Value Capture
The value capture of the HYPER token primarily relies on:
Network Security Demand: The demand for security of the Hyperlane default ISM drives the staking demand for HYPER. The more frequent the network activity and the higher the cross-chain value, the greater the security requirements, thus increasing the demand for HYPER staking.
Protocol Fees: While Relayer costs are a major component, the protocol itself or specific ISMs may charge a small fee, which, if linked to HYPER (for example, offering discounts for using HYPER or using part of the fees for buyback and burn of HYPER), can capture value.
Governance: If HYPER is granted governance rights in the future, holders will be able to influence the direction of protocol development, increasing its intrinsic value.
Ecosystem Growth: The more chains and applications adopt Hyperlane, the stronger its network effect, leading to an increase in overall demand and value support for HYPER.
Recent Developments and Integrations
Hyperlane's in-EVM bridge: Introduced permissionless interoperability to the Injective ecosystem, connecting it with Ethereum and simplifying cross-chain integration, promoting the adoption of decentralized applications.
Hyperlane and Skip Protocol Integration: Integrates Skip's block-building capabilities with Hyperlane's cross-chain communication, aiming to optimize the execution of cross-chain transactions and MEV (Miner Extractable Value) management.
In-depth Analysis of Interchain Security Modules (ISM)
Interchain Security Modules (ISMs) are the core of Hyperlane's modular security framework, defining how cross-chain messages are validated. Each receiving application (Recipient) can specify one or more ISMs to ensure the authenticity and reliability of messages. This design grants developers great flexibility to customize validation logic based on the application's security needs, cost considerations, and trust assumptions.
The Role and Interface of ISM
The core responsibility of ISM is to implement the verify function. When a Relayer submits a message from the source chain to the target chain's Mailbox, the Mailbox calls the verify function of the ISM specified by the recipient. This function receives two key parameters:
_metadata: Off-chain metadata provided by Relayers. The format and content of this metadata depend on the specific type of ISM used. For example, for multi-signature ISM, the metadata typically includes a sufficient number of validator signatures.
_message: The raw cross-chain message encoded by Hyperlane.
The verify function validates the effectiveness of the message based on its internal logic (determined by the ISM type) and the provided metadata. If the validation passes, the function returns true, allowing the Mailbox to continue processing the message and pass it to the handle function of the target application.
To inform the Mailbox which ISM to use, the contract receiving the message needs to implement the ISpecifiesInterchainSecurityModule interface, which includes a function interchainSecurityModule() that returns the address of the ISM contract it wishes to use.
Additionally, each ISM also implements a moduleType() function, which returns an enumeration value (uint8) representing the type of security model of that ISM. This type information helps Relayers know what type of metadata they need to retrieve and format to meet the verification requirements of a specific ISM. Common types include MULTISIG (various forms such as LEGACY_MULTISIG, MERKLE_ROOT_MULTISIG, MESSAGE_ID_MULTISIG), ROUTING, AGGREGATION, OPTIMISTIC (which may be reflected through specific implementations), and types for specific L2->L1 messaging such as ARB_L2_TO_L1 and OP_L2_TO_L1.
Common ISM Types Explained
Hyperlane provides a range of pre-built ISMs, and developers can combine or create custom ISMs:
Multisig ISM: This is one of the most basic and commonly used ISMs. It requires a specific threshold number of members from a pre-configured group of validators to sign the message. Applications can specify their own validator set and threshold. This provides a security model based on trust in a specific group of validators. For example, an application can require that 3 out of 5 signers controlled by its DAO must sign for the message to be considered valid.
Optimistic ISM: This model assumes messages are valid by default and sets a challenge period. After a Validator submits a message, observers (Watchtowers) have the opportunity to submit fraud proofs during the challenge period. If the challenge is successful, the message is rejected, and the malicious validator may be punished (for example, by slashing their staked assets if combined with economic security). The security of this model relies on at least one honest observer being online to monitor and submit fraud proofs in a timely manner. It typically provides faster message transmission (as it does not require waiting for all signatures) but has a delay window (challenge period).
Aggregation ISM: Allows combining multiple different ISMs. It can be configured to require all combined ISMs to validate (AND logic) or only one of the ISMs to validate (OR logic). This allows applications to build more complex and robust security models. For example, a message could be required to pass validation by both a Multisig ISM and an Optimistic ISM.
Routing ISM: Acts as a dispatcher. It can route validation tasks to different ISMs based on the source chain or sender address of the message. This allows applications to apply different security policies for messages from different sources. For example, messages from trusted chains may only require simple validation, while messages from higher-risk chains may require stricter multisig or aggregation validation.
Specific L2->L1 ISM: Such as ARB_L2_TO_L1 and OP_L2_TO_L1, these are specialized ISMs designed to handle messages sent from Layer 2 Rollups like Arbitrum or Optimism to Layer 1 (like Ethereum), leveraging the security mechanisms and messaging bridges of the Rollups themselves.
Hyperlane AVS (based on EigenLayer): Although mentioned in search results, this seems to be a newer development, potentially leveraging EigenLayer's Active Verification Service (AVS) to provide economic security. Validators can participate in the verification of Hyperlane messages by staking ETH (or other assets), incurring penalties for malicious actions. This adds a strong economic security layer option to Hyperlane.
In-Depth Security Discussion
One of Hyperlane's core advantages is its modular and configurable security.
Embodiment of Sovereign Consensus: By allowing applications to specify their own ISM, Hyperlane achieves a degree of 'sovereign consensus'. Applications are no longer entirely dependent on external, universal validator networks (like some PoS cross-chain bridges) but can define their own validation rules and trust boundaries. Applications can choose to trust their own validator set, rely on economic incentives, or combine multiple verification methods.
Application-Specific Validators: As mentioned, applications can specify their own validator set through Multisig ISM. This is very attractive for projects that need to have high control over the security of their cross-chain interactions (like DAOs or high-value DeFi protocols).
Layered Security: Aggregation ISMs allow for the construction of layered security models. For example, the base layer might be an Optimistic ISM for fast transfers, but for high-value transactions, an additional high-threshold Multisig ISM verification could be required.
Economic Security Layer (AVS): Combining EigenLayer's AVS provides Hyperlane with a powerful and scalable economic security option. By staking ETH and other assets, validators incur economic costs for malicious actions, significantly enhancing the protocol's security, especially for applications that do not wish or cannot manage their own validator set.
Challenges of Permissionless Deployment: While permissionless deployment is a significant advantage of Hyperlane, it also brings potential security challenges. Anyone can deploy Hyperlane on a new chain, which means the core team cannot directly control the quality and security configurations of all deployment instances. Applications using Hyperlane instances deployed in a permissionless manner need to assess their own security (e.g., checking whether their configured ISM is sufficiently secure).
Separation of Roles of Relayer and Validator: Relayers are only responsible for transmitting signed messages and do not participate in validation. The responsibility for validation is entirely borne by the ISM and its defined Validators (or Watchtowers). This separation reduces the risk of malicious actions by Relayers (who cannot forge valid signatures) but also means that the final transmission of messages depends on the activity and timeliness of the Relayers.
Warp Routes (Token Bridging)
Warp Routes are Hyperlane's permissionless token bridging modules that allow developers to transfer assets between any chains that support Hyperlane. They are an important part of Hyperlane's interoperability framework, providing high flexibility and configurability.
Core Concepts and Architecture
The core idea of Warp Routes is to allow anyone to deploy independent token bridge instances with custom security configurations, rather than relying on a single, centralized bridging protocol.
Permissionless Deployment: Developers can deploy Warp Routes between any chains that have Hyperlane Mailbox deployed, without the approval of the core team. If the target chain has not yet deployed Hyperlane, developers can even deploy it themselves.
Modular Security: Like Hyperlane's core messaging, the security of Warp Routes is also defined by Interchain Security Modules (ISMs). Each Warp Route's deployer can choose and configure one or more ISMs to verify cross-chain transfer messages, meaning each route can have unique security models and trust assumptions. Users should understand the trust assumptions of specific routes before use.
Support for Multiple Asset Types: Supports ERC20, ERC721 (experimental), native tokens (like ETH), and assets on SVM-compatible chains.
Based on Mailbox: Warp Routes are built on Hyperlane's Mailbox contract, utilizing it for cross-chain messaging.
Basic Process (Example from Collateral -> Synthetic):
Locking/Wrapping: Users lock their original tokens (like ERC20) in the Warp Route contract on the source chain (Collateral Chain).
Message Sending: The Warp Route contract sends a cross-chain message containing transfer information (target chain, recipient, amount, etc.) through the Mailbox of the source chain.
Validation: Messages are signed by Validators and relayed by Relayers to the target chain. The Mailbox on the target chain uses the ISM specified by this Warp Route to validate the message.
Minting/Releasing: Once verified, the Warp Route contract on the target chain (Synthetic Chain) will mint the corresponding amount of wrapped tokens (HypToken, such as HypERC20) to the recipient.
Reverse Process: Users can destroy the wrapped tokens on the target chain, triggering a reverse cross-chain message, ultimately unlocking the original tokens on the source chain.
Warp Route Types
Hyperlane offers multiple Warp Route implementations to fit different scenarios:
Native Token Routing (HypNative.sol): Used for direct transfer of native gas tokens (such as ETH, MATIC) across chains without wrapping. It directly uses msg.value.
Collateral-backed ERC20 Routing (HypERC20Collateral.sol): This is the most common type used for bridging existing ERC20 tokens. It locks the original ERC20 on the source chain and mints the corresponding wrapped token (HypERC20) on the target chain.
Synthetic ERC20 Routing (HypERC20.sol): Used for creating new cross-chain tokens. It does not lock tokens on the source chain but mints synthetic tokens representing the source chain value on the target chain, which are destroyed upon reverse transfer. It maintains consistency in total supply across all chains.
Multi-Collateral Routing: Allows liquidity to be sourced from multiple different collateral tokens.
Special Routing:
Vault Integration (HypERC4626...): Integrates with the ERC4626 standard yield vaults, allowing earnings during the bridging process.
Fiat-backed Tokens (HypFiatToken): Designed for stablecoins, may include specific mint/burn logic.
Scaled Native Tokens (HypNativeScaled): Handles cases where the decimal places of native tokens differ across chains.
xERC20 Integration (HypXERC20, HypXERC20Lockbox): Supports the emerging xERC20 token standard.
Core Interfaces and Contracts
IHypERC20 Interface: This is the core interface for Warp Route token implementation, extending the standard ERC20, adding the transferRemote(uint32 destination, bytes32 recipient, uint256 _amount) function to initiate cross-chain transfers.
TokenRouter.sol: The foundation for all Warp Route contracts, providing the core logic for handling cross-chain token transfers, including message encoding/decoding using the TokenMessage library, as well as abstract methods waiting for subclass implementations like transferFromSender and transferTo.
TokenMessage Format: Defines the standardized cross-chain token message format: [32 bytes recipient][32 bytes amount][remaining bytes metadata].
FastTokenRouter.sol: An extension of TokenRouter, introducing a liquidity provider (LP) mechanism to accelerate transfers. LPs can preemptively satisfy user transfer requests and later get reimbursed via Hyperlane messages, typically charging a fastFee.
Security Considerations
ISM Dependency: The security of the Warp Route completely depends on the configured ISM. A Warp Route configured with a weak ISM (such as a low-threshold multisig or an Optimistic ISM without Watchtowers) is unsafe.
Frontend Curation: Since deployments are permissionless, the Warp Route UI or aggregator needs to manually curate and only display those routes configured with sufficiently strong security to protect users.
Contract Risks: The Warp Route contracts themselves may also have vulnerabilities.
Comparison with Other Cross-Chain Protocols
Features Hyperlane LayerZero Wormhole Axelar Chainlink CCIP Core Mechanism Mailbox + ISM (Modular Verification) ULN + Oracle/Relay Guardian Network (POA) Independent PoS Chain + Validator Network Oracle Network + Risk Management Network Security Modular, Configurable (Multisig, Optimistic, AVS, etc.) Reliance on Oracle and Relay Independence Reliance on Guardian Network's 2/3+ Honest Majority Reliance on Axelar Chain's PoS Security Reliance on Chainlink's Consensus and Reputation Permissionless Deployment Yes (Theoretically) No (Requires Core Team Support for New Chains) No (Requires Core Team Support for New Chains) No (Requires Core Team Support for New Chains) Flexibility High (Applications can Customize Security Models) Medium (Dependent on Oracle/Relay Configuration) Low (Unified Guardian Network) Low (Unified Axelar Chain Validation) Medium (Dependent on Chainlink Network Configuration) Token Bridging Warp Routes (Permissionless) Typically Through Stargate (or Other Applications Built on It) Portal Bridge Satellite (or Other Applications Built on It) CCIP Support Token Transfer Main Advantages Modular Security, Permissionless Deployment, Sovereign Consensus Lightweight On-Chain Endpoints, Permissionless Messaging Broad Ecosystem, Established History Independent PoS Security Assurance, Easy Integration Chainlink's Strong Network Effects and Security Reputation Potential Challenges Security of Permissionless Deployment Instances Needs to be Self-Assessed, Relatively New Ecosystem Centralization Risks of Oracle/Relay, Security Models Relatively Fixed Centralization Risks of Guardians, Past Security Incidents Security and Performance Bottlenecks of the Axelar Chain, Relatively Centralized Potentially High Fees, CCIP is Relatively New.
Potential Risks and Challenges
Smart Contract Risks: Like all DeFi protocols, Hyperlane's core contracts (Mailbox, ISMs, Warp Routes) may have undiscovered vulnerabilities. Despite being audited, complexity itself introduces risks.
ISM Configuration Errors: Developers may make mistakes when configuring ISM, such as setting thresholds too low, selecting insecure validators, or incorrectly combining ISMs, resulting in a security level below expectations.
Validator/Observer Risks:
In the Multisig ISM, the security of validator keys is crucial. If a majority of keys are compromised, an attacker can forge messages.
In the Optimistic ISM, at least one honest, active Watchtower must be ensured. If all Watchtowers are offline or colluding, fraudulent messages may be processed.
When using AVS, it is necessary to rely on the security and effectiveness of EigenLayer's slashing mechanism.
Relayer Activity: The transmission of messages relies on Relayers. If a particular route lacks active Relayers, message transmission may be delayed or fail. While anyone can run a Relayer, the design of the incentive mechanism is important for ensuring the coverage and timeliness of Relayers.
Governance Risks: If Hyperlane issues tokens and adopts on-chain governance, it must guard against governance attacks, such as malicious proposals or vote manipulation through a large token holder control.
Fragmentation of Permissionless Deployments: A large number of uncoordinated, potentially misconfigured Hyperlane deployment instances may lead to ecosystem fragmentation and user confusion.
References
https://docs.hyperlane.xyz/docs/protocol/protocol-overview
#hyperlane #Cross-Chain $HYPER
