As we commemorate the third anniversary of the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol, it is a pleasure to have Susannah Evans, the IBC Product Lead at Interchain Foundation, with us.
—
IBC has emerged as a strong player in interoperability, with reliability and a proven track record. Its creation, rooted in the pursuit of seamless communication between diverse blockchain networks, has significantly minimized the need for third-party intermediaries, setting a benchmark for best practices in the field.
With 115 blockchain zones currently integrated through IBC and an impressive $2.9 billion in transfers recorded in the last month alone, the protocol’s growth trajectory is undeniable. Susannah’s insights into this expansion and its implications for the broader blockchain ecosystem will certainly provide valuable perspective.
Additionally, we will explore the role of Interchain Foundation support in shaping IBC’s evolution towards a standardized framework for blockchain interoperability, along with recent developments that highlight IBC’s adaptability in real-world financial operations.
—
Can you explain the significance of IBC turning three years old and its impact on blockchain interoperability, especially given its ability to enable chains to send and receive any type of data encoded in bytes?
IBC is 3 years old and is important because it is the oldest and most widely used interoperability protocol – this means it has stood the test of time – it is extremely reliable and proven.
“IBC was developed with core values in mind – to enable interoperability (cross-chain read, write and token bridging) between two chains and having to rely only on the consensus of those two chains, and not on a third party or an additional chain in the middle.”
Susannah Evans, the IBC product lead at Interchain Foundation
In other ecosystems, especially Ethereum, we see the consequence of not prioritizing interoperability as a core primitive of the blockchain. There are many app-level interoperability solutions that have made the trade os, especially around the assumptions of trust that they are cost-effective within the EVM, and this becomes even more relevant given the rollup-focused roadmap.
IBC has established a benchmark and ambition for best practices in the field of interoperability.
With 115 blockchain zones connected via IBC and $2.9 billion in transfers in the last 30 days, how do you foresee IBC’s continued growth and impact on the broader blockchain ecosystem?
The IBC network will continue to expand: the more chains are part of the network, the more attractive it becomes for new chains to join. Previously, IBC connected CometBFT and Cosmos SDK based blockchains, but the adoption of the protocol has matured and we see blockchains of different architectures being able to connect to the network – the Polkadot ecosystem and Ethereum for example.
Integrations are in the works with many other ecosystems, some of which have been announced publicly, such as Avalanche and Toki Finance’s work to connect BSC, and some have yet to be announced publicly.
The problem with solving the blockchain interoperability problem is that outside of IBC, interoperability is viewed as an application, typically deployed as smart contracts, and not part of the core blockchain protocol.
For an interop solution to encompass the broader ecosystem, it must be credibly neutral. Therefore, not requiring fees at the transport layer is a requirement and should not require a trusted intermediary to achieve this. The solution space is converging to IBC, so I think IBC definitely is. will play an important role in defining the future of interoperability for the broader blockchain space.
How does the Interchain Foundation’s funding of IBC development contribute to its evolution into a standardized protocol for blockchain interoperability, and what role does it play in the enterprise space?
ICF funding plays a major role in the development of the protocol, but there are many contributors who are not funded by ICF and are actively working to introduce IBC into new ecosystems – proof that there is no single point of failure for it continued existence of the protocol. developed.
Can you discuss how MUFG’s recent adoption of a cross-chain asset issuance and management platform demonstrates IBC’s adaptability in large-scale financial operations?
It demonstrates IBC’s flexibility as an interoperability solution, for diverse use cases, spanning multiple user groups, and is a strong signal for adoption as MUFG is one of the largest financial institutions in Japan.
How does Ethereum’s latest Dencun upgrade and the introduction of Ethereum IBC improve the network’s scalability and modular design to meet user demands, especially in supporting light client-based interoperability?
The Dencun upgrade introduced proto-dankharding and reduced end-user gas costs on rollups by approximately 90%, although Base has seen increased user demand so the savings have not been as noticeable.
For lightweight client-based interoperability between rollups, you must be able to verify that a transaction is being posted to the data availability layer and that the execution of that transaction is valid. With Dencun, posting data to Ethereum as the data availability layer also becomes cheaper – any upgrade that would provide cost savings to the end user will be positive for user demand.
However, this raises a crucial question: the feature is a huge improvement for Ethereum’s scalability, but as evidenced by the increased use of Base, is the pace of deployment of scalability improvements keeping pace with the pace of user demand?
—
To learn more about the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol, visit their website at https://interchain.io/ and stay up to date by following them on Twitter at https://twitter.com/IBCProtocol.
