Comprehensive study on the differences and complements between Polkadot and BTP interoperability

I would like to commission an expert in the field of interoperability to write an article that benefits the community and wider crypto audiance by writing a comprehensive, understandable and educational article on the differences between BTP and Polkadot interoperability and how the two complement each other, in order to build a narrative around ICON’s sidechains ICE and SNOW and educate people about BTP.

The first article will hopefully be a taster for more educational content that I have planned surrounding ICON and BTP.

I am unable to disclose the expert that I am working with, however, the expert and I are under the supervision of Cyrus Vorwald, a technical lead at the ICON Foundation

The cost of the work will be $4000

I’d be interested in this, but also interested in a comparison to the recent project Layer0. The primary difference between BTP and Layer0 is that Layer0 chooses to trust an Oracle rather than the source chain itself (BMV = source chain). Any thoughts on doing Layer0 instead or both?

1 Like

Hi Benny,

Thank you. In terms of comparisons to other interoperability projects, they will be done for future articles.
Polkadot was done alone, because it was the first article I am attempting with this expert, so I wanted to get a feel of his positives and negatives and did not want to overcomplicate. Polkadot interoperability is a lot different than others as it relies on its own XCMP framework, rather than standard methods.
I also wanted to fit a narrative around ICE and SNOW, which would become messy with many other comparisons.

So to answer your question, after this proposal, we would be very interested to do Layer0 and many more.