2025-12-07 09:28:03

As someone deeply embedded in the Solana ecosystem, my driving mission is simple: support every builder here to ship and win.

So when I stumbled upon a bridge that only had half its user-facing implementation live—conveniently just the Solana-to-Base direction—I had to pause. Why would a critical piece of infrastructure launch incomplete? The asymmetry feels deliberate, and that raises questions about priorities and incentives in cross-chain tooling.

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.

10 Likes

Reward
10
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SmartContractPlumber

· 38m ago

A one-way bridge design like this... it's obvious that the permission controls aren't done correctly. I've audited similar vulnerability chains before, and they often start to slide downhill from this kind of "asymmetry," eventually ending up as a combination of integer overflow and reentrancy attacks. The Solana ecosystem can't just muddle through like this.

View OriginalReply0

Blockblind

· 12-07 09:58

A half-baked product launch? Whose fault is that? Honestly, it's just a lack of focus.

View OriginalReply0

MemeKingNFT

· 12-07 09:57

Wait, it's only one-way? Isn't this just an unfinished product going live, just like those abandoned NFT projects last year? If market sentiment reverses, this kind of infrastructure flaw instantly becomes a "bearish signal"...

View OriginalReply0

StablecoinSkeptic

· 12-07 09:57

Damn, they dare to launch a half-baked bridge? A one-way channel from Solana to Base—who designed this?

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketHustler

· 12-07 09:47

Hmm... a one-way bridge? What kind of weird design is this, it feels like they're setting a trap on purpose.

View OriginalReply0

VibesOverCharts