Skip to content

Across Review

Optimistic security explained in one sentence

of 10

Across states its security assumption plainly: bundles are proposed with a bond and accepted unless challenged, and only a single honest actor is needed to dispute an invalid proposal. It supports 28 chains and is audited by OpenZeppelin, under a BUSL licence until 2027.

No money changes hands. This is a non-commercial project: no advertising, no sponsored placements, and no affiliate or referral links. Links to the services below earn us nothing. Every overall score is the plain average of the criteria shown on the page, so you can check the arithmetic yourself — see our rating methodology and how the site is funded.

Licence

BUSL-1.1, change date 27 Jul 2027 to GPL-3.0-or-later

Trust model

Optimistic verification with bonded proposals and a challenge window

Security assumption

A single honest actor suffices to dispute

Chains

28

Auditors

OpenZeppelin, plus UMA audits

Scores

Fee transparency
6.0
Trust model disclosure
10.0
Licence & code openness
4.0
Chain coverage
9.0
Audit disclosure
8.0

Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (6.0 + 10.0 + 4.0 + 9.0 + 8.0) ÷ 5 = 7.4.

Pros

  • Trust model stated in one clear sentence: only a single honest actor need dispute an invalid proposal
  • Uses the UMA Optimistic Oracle, an external and independently documented component
  • 28 chains stated with roughly two-second fills
  • All audits by OpenZeppelin, covering V2, V3 and the token distributor
  • Integrator app fee documented with its range, 0 to 1

Cons

  • Business Source License 1.1 until 27 July 2027 — not an open-source licence today
  • No fixed fee percentage: cost is the difference between input and output amount
  • LP and relayer fee components are described but not quantified

The clearest statement of a security assumption here

Across states that bundles are proposed with a bond and accepted unless challenged within a window, and that only a single honest actor needs to dispute an invalid proposal. That sentence tells a reader exactly what they are relying on — and what would have to fail for funds to be at risk — in a way that a claim of being trustless never does.

Cost is a difference, not a rate

The documentation defines total fee as input amount minus output amount, split conceptually into an LP fee compensating capital utilisation and a relayer fee covering gas, opportunity cost and risk. Neither is published as a percentage, so the price is only knowable at quote time. Integrators may add an app fee, documented as a decimal from 0 to 1.

Licence

Business Source License 1.1, licensed by Risk Labs, converting to GPL v3.0 or later no later than 27 July 2027.

How it compares

Sources

Scored from published primary sources rather than hands-on use. Every figure above comes from one of the pages below, on the date shown. Manufacturers change prices and specifications without notice — if something here no longer matches the source, tell us and we will correct it.

  1. 1.Across — fees documentation — checked
  2. 2.Across — intents architecture and optimistic verification — checked
  3. 3.Across contracts — LICENSE — checked
  4. 4.Across — audits — checked

Frequently asked questions

How does Across secure transfers?

Through optimistic verification: bundles are proposed with a bond and accepted unless challenged within a window, using the UMA Optimistic Oracle. Across states only a single honest actor is needed to dispute an invalid proposal.

What does Across charge?

No fixed percentage. The total fee is the input amount minus the output amount, comprising an LP fee and a relayer fee; integrators may add their own app fee.

Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.