The local verification protocol is a protocol in which only parties participating in a specific cross-domain interaction verify the mutual information. The local verification protocol turns the complex n-party verification problem into a much simpler set of two-party interactions, where each party only verifies its counterparty. As long as the two parties are antagonistic in their economic interests, this model is effective—that is, the two parties cannot collude to obtain funds from the entire chain.

Advantage: • Locally verified systems are trustless-their security is supported by the underlying chain, because rollups share some reasonable guarantees (for example, the review time of the chain cannot exceed X days); • They are also easy to extend to other domains.

Note: Not every locally verified system is trustless. Some projects take a certain degree of sacrifice without trust to improve the user experience or add additional features.

For example, Hop adds some trust assumptions by requiring a fast arbitrary-messaging-bridge (AMB) in the system: the protocol unlocks the bonder's liquidity within 1 day, instead of waiting a full 7 days when exiting the rollup. If AMB does not exist in a given domain, the protocol also needs to rely on an externally verified "bridge".

Disadvantages: Locally verified systems cannot support generalized data passing between chains.

The local verification protocol is a protocol in which only parties participating in a specific cross-domain interaction verify the mutual information. The local verification protocol turns the complex n-party verification problem into a much simpler set of two-party interactions, where each party only verifies its counterparty. As long as the two parties are antagonistic in their economic interests, this model is effective—that is, the two parties cannot collude to obtain funds from the entire chain.

Advantage: • Locally verified systems are trustless-their security is supported by the underlying chain, because rollups share some reasonable guarantees (for example, the review time of the chain cannot exceed X days); • They are also easy to extend to other domains.

Note: Not every locally verified system is trustless. Some projects take a certain degree of sacrifice without trust to improve the user experience or add additional features.

For example, Hop adds some trust assumptions by requiring a fast arbitrary-messaging-bridge (AMB) in the system: the protocol unlocks the bonder's liquidity within 1 day, instead of waiting a full 7 days when exiting the rollup. If AMB does not exist in a given domain, the protocol also needs to rely on an externally verified "bridge".

Disadvantages: Locally verified systems cannot support generalized data passing between chains.