Have to disagree here with Jim (even though either case is bullish for @EverclearOrg). Here's why: There's an objective cost to rebalancing liquidity as a solver. Everclear's netting mechanism brings this cost down significantly, but you ultimately still have *some* liquidity that needs to go through the 7d exit. For major chains this is ok - the fees that solvers earn + the amount nettable via Everclear is high enough that it's worth it. But for many app-specific L2s, this will not be the case. In these instances, the app-specific L2 can allow for some portion of the tokens minted on their chain to be minted via Everclear. Doing this trades a small, but manageable, amount of asset risk for a HUGE improvement in solver economics to attract solvers to the chain when those solvers need to rebalance. So how does Everclear specifically fix this? Can't you just do it with any mint/burn bridge? Everclear is unique in that it is designed to be able to support the most optimal pathway to settle any asset for a chain, and to *negotiate between settlement options when a given asset uses different settlement/minting mechanisms per chain*. As an example: Say you want to transfer $WETH from Arbitrum to ExampleChain. ExampleChain is an L2 where the project has chosen to mint $WETH as an xERC20 because they want to minimize the cost of liquidity for their ecosystem. As a user, it's easy to get a good experience: You just use @AcrossProtocol @SynapseProtocol @routerprotocol or some other protocol that supports intent-based bridging to ExampleChain. But what happens when the solver wants to rebalance the $WETH they unlock on Arbitrum back to ExampleChain? Rebalancing is a more complex two-step process that involves first bridging $WETH to Ethereum (and paying gas), and then bridging xERC20 $WETH from Ethereum to ExampleChain - yikes. This kind of fragmented "backend" for assets is *extremely common* btw. It exists because there is no single bridge or transport protocol that supports EVERY chain, so projects need to mix and match. Some example assets where this problem exists: 1. $USDC -> CCTP on some chains, liquidity pools on others 2. $wstETH -> canonical bridges, @axelar, @wormhole, etc. 3. $FRAX -> Frax Ferry, canonical bridges, @axelar, etc. (in fact, most major assets face this problem in some way) Everclear fixes this by allowing for netting off liquidity-based interactions on some chains against mint/burn interactions on others. Going back to our earlier example, Everclear can net the solver's Arbitrum -> ExampleChain rebalancing transaction against (e.g.): 1. An Optimism -> Arbitrum transaction (WETH minted by canonical bridges); and 2. A ExampleChain -> ExampleChain2 transaction (WETH minted as xERC20) The outcome of doing this is that the solver gets optimally priced rebalancing. This happens without needing to hold (and pay for) $WETH liquidity on ExampleChain AT ALL, and also happens without the solver needing to bridge to Ethereum first. Wild. This is a really complex concept, but it's actually deeply related to **why** fragmentation exists in the space and is so hard to solve without a Clearing Layer. (Note: this approach isn't exclusively limited to xERC20s - Everclear can and will work with other minting mechanisms because it's an open system!) I'll try to spend some time unpacking this further in a blog post at some point!