Introduction
Union Build is a modular interoperability protocol designed to enable secure asset and message exchanges across blockchains and decentralized applications (dApps). By leveraging zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs, it eliminates reliance on centralized validators or relayers, positioning itself as a trust-minimized, censorship-resistant bridging solution with high security. This review evaluates Union Build’s technical aspects based on innovation, architecture, code quality, usability, and roadmap.
Innovation
Union Build introduces a paradigm shift in cross-chain interoperability by integrating ZK proofs for consensus verification. Unlike traditional bridges that depend on multisigs or external validators, Union ensures blockchain state transitions through cryptographic proofs, reducing latency and security risks. It also enhances the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol by making it compatible with multiple ecosystems, including Ethereum, Solana, and Cosmos, without requiring trusted relayers.
Architecture
Union’s architecture is built around modular interoperability, enabling developers to integrate functionalities such as:
- General Message Passing (GMP): Facilitates secure cross-chain smart contract calls.
- Token Transfers: Enables asset movement without synthetic tokens or wrapping.
- NFT Bridging: Maintains metadata integrity while transferring NFTs across chains.
- Cross-Chain DeFi: Supports multi-chain liquidity pools and decentralized finance applications.
- Chain Abstraction: Allows seamless execution across EVM-compatible chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon), Solana (SVM), and Cosmos SDK chains.
The design prioritizes security by leveraging ZK proofs to validate cross-chain transactions, removing the need for intermediaries.
Code Quality
Union Build has yet to release extensive open-source code for public audits. However, its technical foundation in ZK proofs suggests a high level of security and efficiency. While the use of ZK proofs enhances verifiability, real-world deployment and third-party audits are essential to fully assess the robustness of the implementation.
Product Roadmap
Currently, Union has launched a testnet enabling bridging of UNO tokens from Union’s testnet to Ethereum’s Sepolia network via ZK proofs. Future milestones include:
- Expansion of cross-chain functionality to additional blockchains.
- Development of production-ready smart contracts.
- Implementation of a governance framework to decentralize protocol control.
- Enhanced tooling for developers to build cross-chain applications using Union’s infrastructure.
While the roadmap appears promising, real-time development progress will determine Union’s long-term viability.
Usability
Union Build simplifies cross-chain interactions by abstracting complex bridging mechanisms into modular components. This approach allows developers to create seamless multi-chain applications without requiring deep expertise in individual blockchain protocols. However, as the platform is still in its early stages, comprehensive developer documentation and tooling will be critical for adoption.
Team
Union Build’s team comprises blockchain researchers and developers specializing in cryptography, distributed systems, and interoperability. However, publicly available details about the team’s track record and past contributions remain limited. Greater transparency regarding core contributors and their expertise would strengthen confidence in the project.
Conclusion
Union Build presents a compelling vision for cross-chain interoperability, leveraging ZK proofs to enhance security and trust minimization. By eliminating centralized relayers and validators, it offers a fundamentally more secure alternative to existing bridges such as Wormhole, LayerZero, and Axelar. However, as the project is still in its testnet phase, real-world performance, security audits, and developer adoption will be key factors in determining its success. If Union can deliver on its promises, it has the potential to become a leading cross-chain interoperability protocol.
Initial Screening | |||
Keep researching | |||
Does this project need to use blockchain technology? | Yes | ||
Can this project be realized? | Yes | ||
Is there a viable use case for this project? | Yes | ||
Is the project protected from commonly known attacks? | Yes | ||
Are there no careless errors in the whitepaper? | Yes | ||
Project Technology Score | |||
Description | Scorecard | ||
Innovation (Out Of 11) | 9 | ||
How have similar projects performed? | Good | 2 | |
Are there too many innovations? | Regular | 2 | |
Percentage of crypto users that will use the project? | 6% -10% | 3 | |
Is the project unique? | Yes | 2 | |
Architecture (Out of 12) | 11 | ||
Overall feeling after reading whitepaper? | Good | 2 | |
Resistance to possible attacks? | Good | 2 | |
Complexity of the architecture? | Not too complex | 2 | |
Time taken to understand the architecture? | 20-50 min | 1 | |
Overall feeling about the architecture after deeper research? | Good | 4 | |
Has the project been hacked? | No | 0 | |
Code Quality (out of 15) | 13 | ||
Is the project open source? | Yes | 2 | |
Does the project use good code like C,C++, Rust, Erlang, Ruby, etc? | Yes | 2 | |
Could the project use better programming languages? | No | 0 | |
Github number of lines? | More than 10K | 1 | |
Github commits per month? | More than 10 | 2 | |
What is the quality of the code? | Good | 2 | |
How well is the code commented? | Good | 1 | |
Overall quality of the test coverage? | Outstanding | 2 | |
Overall quality of the maintainability index? | Good | 1 | |
When Mainnet (out of 5) | 5 | ||
When does the mainnet come out? | Mainnet Ready | 5 | |
Usability for Infrastructure Projects (out of 5) | 5 | ||
Is it easy to use for the end customer? | Yes | 5 | |
Team (out of 7) | 6 | ||
Number of active developers? | 5+ | 2 | |
Developers average Git Background? | Senior | 2 | |
Developers coding style? | Solid | 2 | |
Total Score (out of 55) | 49 | ||
Percentage Score | |||
Innovation | 16.36% | ||
Architecture | 20.00% | ||
Code Quality | 23.64% | ||
Mainnet | 9.09% | ||
Usability | 9.09% | ||
Team | 10.91% | ||
Total | 89.09% |