A major L2 player just dropped a bridge connecting to Solana, powered by Chainlink's CCIP security layer. Context matters here: that L2 handled 14.1% of all on-chain activity last month, while Solana's been vacuum-cleaning $460 million from competing chains. Now the entity behind both the exchange and that L2 controls the gateway linking these speed-focused ecosystems—positioning itself to rake fees from a 100-million-user flow. Strategic infrastructure play or rent-seeking bottleneck? The data tells one story, the positioning screams another.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
11 Likes
Reward
11
3
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
BridgeNomad
· 22h ago
ngl the CCIP layer is solid but... that 14.1% activity + $460m vacuum combo? classic rent-seeking disguised as infrastructure lmao. seen this movie before with wormhole, spoiler: someone gets rekt on slippage
Reply0
WenMoon
· 22h ago
Yet another centralized bottleneck trick; the fee model is obvious at a glance.
View OriginalReply0
WealthCoffee
· 22h ago
Same old trick. Controlling the bridge interface means controlling the discourse; they can charge whatever fees they want.
A major L2 player just dropped a bridge connecting to Solana, powered by Chainlink's CCIP security layer. Context matters here: that L2 handled 14.1% of all on-chain activity last month, while Solana's been vacuum-cleaning $460 million from competing chains. Now the entity behind both the exchange and that L2 controls the gateway linking these speed-focused ecosystems—positioning itself to rake fees from a 100-million-user flow. Strategic infrastructure play or rent-seeking bottleneck? The data tells one story, the positioning screams another.