Why does a valid signature on one chain still authorize a transfer on another?
Opportunity
Cross-chain bridges sign messages to authorize transfers, but most protocols do not include the destination chain ID or action type inside the signed payload itself. An attacker who sees a legitimate signed message can broadcast it to a different chain or replay it as a different action, and the receiving contract cannot distinguish the replay from a fresh authorization. The CrossCurve bridge lost $3M in February 2026 this way, and replay-class bridge incidents have totaled over $180M with a median six-week window from deployment to first exploit. ERC-7281 standardizes cross-chain token interfaces but does not mandate domain-separated signing across the broader message layer. No enforced standard today requires that every signed cross-chain payload carry a chain ID and action-type commitment that makes re-broadcasting structurally invalid.
Why it matters
Domain-separated signing is the missing primitive that makes a signed cross-chain message valid exactly once on exactly one chain.
How I score the opportunity
The Opportunity Score is my own read, not a measurement: how much it hurts, how often it bites, and how little exists to solve it today. Higher means I think it is more worth building.
How much pain it causes when it shows up.
How often people actually run into it.
How little good tooling exists for it today.
More problems worth solving
Why can't I prove I am solvent without showing my balance?
BlockchainWhy is moving money between chains still scarier than the early internet?
BlockchainWhy does compliance still mean a PDF and a prayer?
BlockchainWhy is self-custody still a choice between losing your keys and trusting a company?
BlockchainWhy does tokenizing a real asset still need ten middlemen?
BlockchainWhy can't a stablecoin pay someone with no internet?