We are grateful to the NEW for their summary of proposals and outlining the advantages and considerations of each, including Chainlink CCIP. In response to some of the considerations, we’d like to clarify those points to help voters make an informed decision.
It should be noted that the UBAC’s assessment of various cross-chain providers did not include Chainlink CCIP as the protocol was not yet live at that time. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that the report’s focus was specifically on cross-chain governance messaging, which has different requirements and implications compared to cross-chain token transfers, such as this use case of wstETH. That said, we are eager to collaborate with the UBAC in any future re-evaluations as they had originally outlined.
Chainlink CCIP is built to serve as the global standard for cross-chain communication. Ensuring the security of CCIP deployments and the sustainability of the protocol’s economics is crucial to CCIP’s longevity. To support these goals, portions of the CCIP codebase have been initially licensed under a Business Source License (BSL), which will automatically roll into an MIT license after four years. This licensing model is in line with the approach taken by other leading Web3 infrastructure protocols and applications. The source code for CCIP is publicly viewable on GitHub, with on-chain contracts verified across each relevant blockchain explorer. The inclusion of a legal disclaimer in our proposal is a standard business practice.
Since the inception of our bug bounty programs on HackerOne and Immunefi, over $500K in total has been paid across 75+ resolved reports to more than 50 independent researchers. In addition, we have participated in five crowdsourced audits on Code4rena, with participation by over 500 researchers and a total combined prize pool of $700K+.
Participating in audit programs and incentivizing top security professionals are among the strategies used to enhance the security and reliability of Chainlink services, and to uphold Chainlink’s strong reputation for these qualities.
Chainlink CCIP’s fee model is aligned with industry standards, where users pay a low bps-based fee for cross-chain token transfers in native gas tokens (BNB and WBNB in this case) or alternatively in LINK, to cover destination gas fees and provide an economic incentive to nodes. CCIP’s billing model was built to reduce payment friction for users and allow the protocol to quickly scale to new chains. While other cross-chain providers may not inform users that their fees are subject to change, we feel it’s fair to be transparent on this point, given the dynamic nature of the cross-chain ecosystem.
Thanks again to the NEW for their overview and we’re happy to continue the conversation with the community.