Orbiter Finance and Hop Protocol Comparison
3 min read
Here’s a comparison of the bridges that I use the most.
Both are great protocols and it will boil down on how use each protocol.
Let’s say you are more of a zkSync user so absolutely Orbiter will be more beneficial to you, buy if you are a more of Gnosis user then you’ll benefit using Hop Protocol. So these protocols are useful in their own unique way and helping a lot in Layer 2 adoption which is very good for the ecosystem. What you’re seeing is a healthy competition, both bridges have their own strength and weaknesses but please note that we are still in an early stage of Layer 2 adoption so we’ll see great progress in developing both bridges.
Also, Orbiter Finance is part of Gitcoin Grants Round 13. You can support Orbiter Finance here.
I have created a table below adding all the helpful information I can gather across the web:
Orbiter Finance |
Hop Protocol |
|
| Website | https://app.orbiter.finance/ | https://hop.exchange/ |
| Github | https://github.com/OrbiterCross | https://github.com/hop-protocol |
| https://twitter.com/Orbiter_Finance | https://twitter.com/HopProtocol | |
| VC funded | No | Yes |
| Supported networks | • Ethereum •zkSync •StarkNet •Arbitrum •Optimism •Polygon Coming soon: •Loopring •dYdX •ImmutableX •Deversifi |
• Ethereum •Arbitrum •Optimistic •Polygon •Gnosis Coming soon: •zkSync (on zkSync 2.0) |
| Top Programming languages | • Solidity •JavaScript •TypeScript •Vue |
• TypeScript •JavaScript •HTML •TLA |
| Features | • Convert (bridging assets from protocol to another) •Pool (you can provide liquidity for bridging assets and earn income) •Send (users will have the capability to send assets to a different address, as of now Orbiter can only bridge/convert assets using the same ERC address) |
• Convert (bridging assets from protocol to another)
•Pool (you can provide liquidity for bridging assets and earn income) •Send (users will have the capability to send assets to a different address, as of now Orbiter can only bridge/convert assets using the same ERC address) •Stake (ability to stake LP tokens) |
| Supported token standards | • ERC – 20 •ERC – 721 |
• ERC – 20 |
| Native token | None yet | None yet |
| Fees | The team hasn’t fully written how they calculate fees, but they have shared a fee schedule on a Twitter post. |
1. AMM swap fees (0.04%)When you transfer e.g USDC from Optimism to Arbitrum your USDC will be converted into hUSDC in the USDC AMM on Optimism costing a 0.04% fee.Then this hUSDC will be burned and a Bonder will bond your transfer by locking his collateral and mint you some new hUSDC on Arbitrum. This hUSDC will now be converted in the Arbitrum USDC AMM for canonical USDC costing another 0.04%. L2 <> L2 -> 0.08% swap fees (because two swaps)L2 -> L1 -> 0.04% (because only one swap) 2. Slippage (?%)Depending on the liquidity in the AMM’s the rate for conversions between hTokens and canonical tokens can fluctuate and eat into the cost of your transfer. With more liquidity in the Hop protocol and actors arbitraging the pools this should become less and less of a problem. 3. Bonder fee (0.06-0.25%)The Bonder takes a fee for fronting the liquidity of your transfer at the destination chain and taking on risk.The fee varies per asset and per route based on the transaction volume and other factors due to economies of scale. If there is a lot of demand for an asset, Bonder fees can be lowered while still breaking even. 4. Destination chain tx fee (gas fees)The funds need to be sent from the Bonder to your wallet and users need to pay for this gas cost.This gas cost is factored into the fee the user pays on the origin chain and displayed before sending. 5. Minimum fee ($1) To prevent spamming there is a minimum fee of $1 per Hop transfer. I.e if the total fee paid by the user is < $1 it will be rounded up to $1. |
| Other Helpful links | Step-by-step guide on using Orbiter Docs Medium Youtube |
FAQs Docs Whitepaper Video |
