Skip to main content

Moving Assets: Two-Step vs One-Step

This page explains how Euclid can move assets across chains with either a two-step flow or a one-step user-visible flow.

This is Euclid's asset movement model. It is similar to what users often call bridging, but the point here is not a standalone bridge UX. The point is to move value across chains through Euclid's execution and settlement model.

Two-Step Process​

The two-step process separates deposit and withdrawal.

Step 1: Deposit (Native -> Voucher)​

  • Native -> Voucher = 2T

The user deposits a native asset into Euclid and receives voucher balance.

Step 2: Withdraw (Voucher -> Native)​

  • Voucher -> Native = 4T

The user redeems voucher value into a native asset on any other chain that supports that asset.

Meta-Transaction Withdrawal​

  • MetaTx Voucher -> Native = 2T

This reduces user-side friction and can improve practical execution experience because the user signs an intent rather than directly paying gas for the withdrawal step.

Two-Step Summary​

  • maximum total: 6T
  • average total: 4T
  • usually involves two visible stages
  • usually requires two signatures in the normal non-meta flow

This model is more flexible, but heavier in user interaction.

One-Step Process​

The one-step process can be thought of as deposit and release in a single user-visible flow.

  • Native -> Native = 4T

Interpretation:

  • the user provides a native asset
  • the system handles internal routing and final native release as one visible process
  • there is no separate user-managed wait between deposit and redeem phases
  • the experience feels like one continuous action rather than two operational stages

Why This Matters​

For products that need to move assets from one chain to another cleanly, the one-step flow can be easier to explain and easier to use because:

  • there is less user waiting between stages
  • the user does not need to understand vouchers explicitly
  • there is only one visible action instead of two distinct ones
  • payout and off-ramp style experiences feel cleaner

The two-step flow remains useful when you want users to enter the voucher system first and then continue operating from voucher balances.

Comparison Table​

ProcessStepsCost modelSignaturesUX characteristics
Two-Step: Deposit then Withdraw2max 6T, avg 4T2Flexible but slower and more explicit
One-Step: Deposit and Release14T1Cleaner for off-ramp and simple payout UX

Choosing Between Them​

Use the two-step flow when:

  • you want users to enter the voucher system and continue using voucher balances
  • you expect follow-up actions inside Euclid after deposit
  • explicit deposit and redemption stages are acceptable in the UX

Use the one-step flow when:

  • the main goal is simply moving value from chain A to chain B
  • you want the cleanest user-visible experience
  • you do not want to expose voucher concepts in the core user journey