Skip to main content

Performance

This page explains the relative time and relay-cost model for Euclid integration patterns.

The T Model​

To compare different execution paths clearly, define:

  • T: the cost of one cross-chain packet

T is a compact unit that represents both:

  • relay time
  • relay cost

What A Cycle Means​

One cycle is defined as 2T, meaning at least two cross-chain packet events are required to complete that stage of the flow.

So:

  • 1 cycle = 2T
  • 2 cycles = 4T

This gives a simple way to compare native-token flows, voucher flows, and meta-transaction flows.

Performance By Interaction Type​

Type
Cycles
Cost
Typical meaning
Native -> Native
at least 2 cycles
>= 4T
Full native cross-chain movement and settlement
Voucher -> Native
at least 2 cycles
>= 4T
Redeeming voucher value back into a native asset
Native -> Voucher
1 cycle
2T
Depositing native assets into Euclid and minting vouchers
Voucher -> Voucher
1 cycle
2T
Value movement within the voucher layer
MetaTx Voucher -> Native
at least 1 cycle
>= 2T
User signs intent; relayer handles execution to native redemption
MetaTx Voucher -> Voucher
0 cycles
0T
Fastest path; internal voucher-layer execution with no user gas

How To Read The Table​

When a row uses >=, the final cost depends on how many destination chains the output is being released to. Releasing value to more chains means more settlement work and more relay packets, which pushes the total above the baseline minimum.

Native -> Native​

This is the traditional cross-chain path. Because real assets need to move and settle across chains, it requires at least two full cycles. It is generally the slowest and most relay-heavy option.

Voucher -> Native​

This is a redemption flow. Even though value is already represented internally, the system still needs to release a real asset on-chain, so the cycle profile remains relatively heavy.

Native -> Voucher​

This is the entry path into Euclid's voucher system. The user deposits native assets and receives voucher balance. It takes one cycle and is materially faster than full native-to-native movement.

Voucher -> Voucher​

This is where the architecture becomes powerful. Since value stays inside the internal settlement system, only one cycle is required in the baseline model.

MetaTx Voucher -> Native​

This still ends in a real native payout, so some real settlement remains necessary. The user experience improves because the user signs an intent while a relayer handles execution.

MetaTx Voucher -> Voucher​

This is the fastest path. Execution stays fully within the voucher layer and is submitted through relayer infrastructure, so the user experiences a near-immediate and gasless interaction.

Practical Performance Summary​

Flow family
User needs gas?
User signs direct tx?
Relative UX speed
Standard Native -> Native
Yes
Yes
Slowest
Standard Native -> Voucher
Yes
Yes
Moderate
Standard Voucher -> Voucher
Usually yes unless meta-tx
Usually yes unless meta-tx
Fast
Standard Voucher -> Native
Yes
Yes
Slow
MetaTx Voucher -> Voucher
No
No, signs intent only
Fastest
MetaTx Voucher -> Native
No at user level
No, signs intent only
Very fast user-side, slower than Voucher -> Voucher

Rules Of Thumb​

  • If real native assets must leave or enter the system, expect more relay cost and more waiting.
  • If value can stay inside the voucher layer, the flow becomes much faster.
  • Meta-transactions improve user experience most when combined with voucher-layer execution.
  • The biggest UX gain comes from keeping repeated actions inside the voucher layer for as long as possible.