In the multi-chain DeFi world, the real pain point isn't simply cross-chain asset transfers themselves, but the lack of a settlement unit. While Bitcoin and Ethereum are mainstream assets in the crypto market, they lack uniformity in the context of cross-chain interoperability: BTC on one chain and WBTC on another are inherently separate. While stablecoins USDT/USDC attempt to fulfill a settlement role, their versions across different chains remain fragmented. Mitosis's Hub Assets (miAssets/maAssets) are essentially a prototype of a cross-chain settlement currency. They unify the native assets locked in vaults into Hub Assets, with liquidity allocated by the governance and policy layers. If this model is widely adopted, Hub Assets could become a truly unified settlement medium in the multi-chain world. I. "Settlement Currency" Characteristics of Hub Assets 1. Value Anchorage Hub Assets are pegged 1:1 to the underlying native assets, inherently providing value stability. Unlike single-chain packaged assets, Hub Assets are not the product of a bridge, but rather generated by a unified vault, offering greater fungibility. 2. Cross-chain Interoperability Whether it's EVM, Cosmos, or other ecosystems, Hub Assets can be accessed using a unified standard, reducing developer adaptation costs. This makes them a natural fit as a settlement benchmark across multiple chains. 3. Governance and Policy Support Unlike traditional stablecoins, the circulation and application of Hub Assets are determined by gMITO governance voting, allowing them to dynamically adapt to the liquidity needs of different chains. In other words, Hub Assets are not static currencies but "dynamic capital." ⸻ II. Why is a unified cross-chain settlement medium necessary? 1. The Cost of Liquidity Fragmentation When USDT/USDC is distributed across more than a dozen chains, the liquidity pool depth of each chain is limited, and cross-chain exchanges incur additional costs and time. A unified Hub Asset can be used directly as a cross-chain payment medium, reducing transfer costs. 2. Institutional Funding Demands Institutional investors prefer stable and uniform settlement units. If Hub Assets can provide standardized settlement functionality across ecosystems, it could become the preferred choice for institutional funds flowing into multiple chains. 3. Developer Ecosystem Convenience If developers can directly call Hub Assets in smart contracts without having to distinguish between on-chain versions, this can significantly reduce complexity and accelerate application implementation. ⸻ III. Comparison of Hub Assets with Existing Stablecoins • Differences from USDT/USDC: Stablecoins rely on a single issuer and form multiple versions after cross-chain transactions; Hub Assets are minted by a decentralized vault and can circulate across chains without re-issuance. • Differences from LST (Liquid Staked Stablecoins): LST is anchored to staking returns, while Hub Assets is anchored to the value of the native asset. The two can complement each other: LST provides returns, while Hub Assets provides settlement functions. • Differences from Cross-Chain Wrapped Assets: Traditional wrapped assets like WBTC and anyETH rely on specific bridges, concentrating risks. Hub Assets utilize the Mitosis Chain as a unified layer, offering greater governance transparency. ⸻ IV. Potential Application Scenarios 1. Cross-Chain Settlement Layer: DEXes on different chains can directly use Hub Assets as a settlement currency, avoiding multiple exchanges. 2. Lending Collateral: The unified Hub Assets are widely accepted as collateral, improving capital utilization. 3. Multi-Chain Payment Tool: Cross-Chain protocols or applications can use Hub Assets as a payment medium, reducing user experience complexity. 4. Governance and Public Funding Pool Operation: EOL and Matrix will allocate Hub Assets to form a cross-chain public funding pool, with profits and risks shared by governance. ⸻ V. Challenges and Risks 1. Difficulty of Adoption For Hub Assets to become a cross-chain settlement currency, it requires widespread adoption by developers and applications. If limited to the Mitosis ecosystem, its full value cannot be fully realized. 2. Governance Game The liquidity allocation of Hub Assets is determined by governance. However, inefficient governance or manipulation by large players could lead to an imbalance in capital allocation, undermining the credibility of Hub Assets. 3. Market Competition Stablecoins still hold strong network effects. If Mitosis wants to establish Hub Assets as a settlement currency, it needs to demonstrate superior security, liquidity, and cross-chain convenience compared to existing solutions. ⸻ Six. My Perspective I believe Mitosis's core breakthrough lies not in "faster cross-chain transactions" but in proposing the possibility of Hub Assets as a settlement currency. If this logic works, the complexity of cross-chain transactions will be completely abstracted: users only need to hold Hub Assets to interact on any chain, and developers will be able to directly access a unified settlement unit. This will fundamentally change the ecosystem logic of cross-chain finance, making multi-chain interoperability truly capital-efficient. ⸻ Seven. Conclusion Hub Assets represents the most strategically promising component of Mitosis's design. It has the potential to become the "stable settlement currency" of cross-chain finance, providing a unified settlement layer for users, institutions, and developers. Of course, to achieve this, Mitosis must continue to make breakthroughs in three areas: 1. Expand the EOL pool to ensure sufficient depth of Hub Assets; 2. Ensure efficient and transparent governance to prevent hijacking by large investors.3. Promote widespread developer adoption and free Hub Assets from a single ecosystem. In the coming years, if Hub Assets truly becomes a standard settlement medium across multiple chains, Mitosis will become more than just a cross-chain protocol.