# Simon Harman

> Simon Harman is a person who leads Chainflip as its founder and CEO and publishes research and design work on cryptoeconomics and cross-chain AMM systems.

- Canonical URL: https://iq.wiki/wiki/simon-harman
- Categories: People in crypto
- Tags: Advisor, Developer, Founder, Researcher, Speaker
- Created: 2026-09-04T18:10:34.406Z
- Last updated: 2026-09-04T18:31:51.911Z
- Source: IQ.wiki — the world's largest blockchain and crypto encyclopedia (https://iq.wiki)

---

**Simon Harman** is an Australian entrepreneur and cryptoeconomics writer and researcher who founded and leads Chainflip Labs, the company developing [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip), a cross-chain [automated market maker (AMM)](https://iq.wiki/wiki/automated-market-maker) for swapping tokens between different [blockchain](https://iq.wiki/wiki/blockchain) ecosystems, and serves on the board of the Oxen Foundation.[\[1\]](#cite-id-zyo8vjg31i)​[\[2\]](#cite-id-dzhvsv2dsf)​[\[3\]](#cite-id-nt51jpz0f4) He is based in Berlin and has been active in the [cryptocurrency](https://iq.wiki/wiki/cryptocurrency) space since 2014.[\[1\]](#cite-id-zyo8vjg31i) Beyond Chainflip, he sits on the board of the Oxen Foundation, which supports privacy-focused technologies including the Session messaging application, and he has written extensively on what he calls the "nascent and arguably non-existent field of cryptoeconomics."[\[2\]](#cite-id-dzhvsv2dsf)​[\[3\]](#cite-id-nt51jpz0f4)​

## Education

Simon Harman attended RMIT University from 2015 to 2017, where he completed a Bachelor of Arts in Music Industry. [\[5\]](#cite-id-b2zbImVxpYOKMqul) 

## Career

Across his career, Harman has built teams that produced several products, most prominently the Session secure messaging app and the [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) cross-chain exchange.[\[2\]](#cite-id-dzhvsv2dsf) He states that he wrote several protocol designs for distributed systems together with collaborators Kee Jefferys, Maxim Shishmarev, and Jason Rhinelander.[\[2\]](#cite-id-dzhvsv2dsf)​

### Loki, Oxen, and Session

Harman's earliest documented work centres on the Loki Project, later associated with the Oxen Foundation. He authored the 2018 Loki [Whitepaper](https://iq.wiki/wiki/white-paper), which he describes as "the founding document for the Loki Project," and in the same year produced Loki Cryptoeconomics, a preliminary design for the network's Service [Nodes](https://iq.wiki/wiki/node).[\[2\]](#cite-id-dzhvsv2dsf) He continued analysing the network's economic model with LRC-3 in 2020, described as the second analysis of the Loki network's economic scheme in light of [Proof of Stake](https://iq.wiki/wiki/delegated-proof-of-stake-dpos), and LRC-7, an analysis of Blockswap's economic implications for Loki with recommendations to address them.[\[2\]](#cite-id-dzhvsv2dsf)​

Out of this work came Session, a secure messaging application built on the Signal protocol. Harman describes Session as having no phone numbers and no central servers, instead onion-routing messages over the Loki network to preserve user privacy.[\[2\]](#cite-id-dzhvsv2dsf) He authored the 2019 Session [Whitepaper](https://iq.wiki/wiki/white-paper) as the app's primary design document, and [The Block](https://iq.wiki/wiki/the-block) reports that Harman helped develop the app.[\[2\]](#cite-id-dzhvsv2dsf)​[\[1\]](#cite-id-zyo8vjg31i) He remains a board member of the Oxen Foundation, which supports privacy technologies such as Session.[\[1\]](#cite-id-zyo8vjg31i)​

### Chainflip Labs

Harman leads Chainflip Labs, a company focused on developing [decentralized exchange (DEX)](https://iq.wiki/wiki/decentralized-exchange) solutions for cross-chain trading. The company works to solve liquidity fragmentation in the cross-chain space and to create efficient and secure methods for users to trade [digital assets](https://iq.wiki/wiki/digital-assets) across multiple [blockchains](https://iq.wiki/wiki/blockchain).[\[1\]](#cite-id-zyo8vjg31i) Harman describes [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) as a cross-chain AMM designed to let users swap tokens across ecosystems without violating chain sovereignty.[\[2\]](#cite-id-dzhvsv2dsf) He authored the 2020 Chainflip [Whitepaper](https://iq.wiki/wiki/white-paper), describing the core protocol design of the system.[\[2\]](#cite-id-dzhvsv2dsf)​

On May 11, 2022, Chainflip Labs was reported to have secured $10 million to build its cross-chain DEX.[\[1\]](#cite-id-zyo8vjg31i) The protocol runs in its own independent execution environment, a custom system Harman refers to as the State Chain, which allows swap execution to be automated by Chainflip's [validator](https://iq.wiki/wiki/validator) network and enables features that [leverage](https://iq.wiki/wiki/leverage) that environment.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy)​

## Writing on Cryptoeconomics

Harman is the author of a body of writing published under the heading "Simon Harman · Cryptoeconomics." He produced the 2021 [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) Cryptoeconomics Series, a lengthy series of essays on the project's economics, and the 2022 JIT AMM Paper, which he describes as a novel AMM design built specifically for cross-chain swapping.[\[2\]](#cite-id-dzhvsv2dsf) The Cryptoeconomics Series is presented as the first part of a multi-part project, each part paired with a topic in the Chainflip Governance Forum, with planned instalments on Uncapped Supply, [Validator](https://iq.wiki/wiki/validator) Auction Theory, Swapping Logic, Liquidity Incentive Structure, and Economic Security.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy)​

### The JIT AMM Design

The central technical contribution of Harman's [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) writing is what he calls a "Just In Time" (JIT) liquidity [AMM](https://iq.wiki/wiki/automated-market-maker), a design he argues differs substantially from industry-standard AMMs because of the constraints of cross-chain transfers. He states there are very few examples of similar trading products in use today.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy) The problem the design addresses is that confirmation times on external chains delay pricing and [arbitrage](https://iq.wiki/wiki/arbitrage), producing prolonged deviations from market index prices. Harman claims that cross-chain [DEXes](https://iq.wiki/wiki/decentralized-exchange) which have not mitigated this problem can consistently deviate from market rate by as much as 10%, because the protocol must wait several [blocks](https://iq.wiki/wiki/block) to confirm external-chain deposits owing to the risk of chain reorganisations, and because those delayed, publicly visible deposits leave the protocol vulnerable to front-running.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy)​

The JIT AMM addresses this through two core features implemented directly in the State Chain and [validator](https://iq.wiki/wiki/validator) software. The first is swap batching, in which swaps are grouped and executed periodically so that [slippage](https://iq.wiki/wiki/slippage) cancels out and trade front-running becomes unprofitable. The second is faster-than-swap range order updates, which let market makers update their liquidity positions before known swaps execute so they can actively respond to incoming trade flow.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy) The design's stated intent is to "flip" front-running so that [liquidity providers](https://iq.wiki/wiki/liquidity-providers) are incentivised to compete against each other for the benefit of users. It relies on a fixed liquidity fee in each pool, stated as between 5 and 30 basis points in most pools, which acts as a built-in delta that market makers attempt to capture by moving their liquidity right up to the market price and hedging elsewhere.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy) Harman reports that several months after he published the design, MEV seekers spotted similar behaviour in [Uniswap](https://iq.wiki/wiki/uniswap) v3, which he takes as evidence of the strategy's viability in practice.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy)​

Harman illustrates the mechanism with a worked example of a user swapping 10,000 [USDC](https://iq.wiki/wiki/usdc) for native DOT in a pool with a 25 basis point fee. Because [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) requires six [Ethereum](https://iq.wiki/wiki/ethereum) [blocks](https://iq.wiki/wiki/block) to consider a deposit final and processes swaps in six-block batches (roughly 18 [Polkadot](https://iq.wiki/wiki/polkadot) blocks), there is a minimum six-block delay of about 90 seconds during which market makers can see exactly what the swaps will be and adjust their range orders. In his scenario, a batch of ten trades totals $280,000 in volume, of which only $90,000 buys DOT, so the batch must sell about $170,000 of DOT overall; to capture up to 25 basis points of fees (about $700), market makers must offer the best price on that $170,000 within the delay. Two example market makers concentrate $170,000 of liquidity at $23.45 and $23.47 per [DOT](https://iq.wiki/wiki/polkadot-dot) respectively, with the better-placed maker capturing the full fee and then selling the DOT at or above its price on other markets to realise profit.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy) He notes that such opportunities recur every batch, which can occur as often as every couple of minutes per pool, and that market makers who do not win the fee experience zero [impermanent loss](https://iq.wiki/wiki/impermanent-loss) because their balances remain unchanged.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy)​

Harman details several caveats to the design. He notes that it would be rare for a single provider to take 100% of the fee; typical pools would see one or two market makers take the majority with small fills by others. He explains that Chainflip intends to run dozens of pools at once with differing speeds depending on each chain's block and confirmation times, and that multi-hop swaps such as [BTC](https://iq.wiki/wiki/bitcoin-btc) to [ETH](https://iq.wiki/wiki/ether-eth) would route through intermediate [USDC](https://iq.wiki/wiki/usdc) pools, involving two batches — an approach that briefly exposes users to USDC but reduces liquidity fragmentation. Direct asset-to-asset pools such as ETH-BTC could be added by protocol upgrade if particular routes became popular.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy) He also acknowledges limits: the protocol cannot give users certainty about their swap outcome ahead of time because the final batch state is only known after trades are submitted, an uncertainty that is worse for multi-hop routes; and if a pool becomes very imbalanced from large directional trades, market makers on one side could be exhausted, harming users who rely on JIT pricing since passive liquidity is not generally expected on such [AMMs](https://iq.wiki/wiki/automated-market-maker).[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy)​

On capital efficiency, Harman estimates that total value locked in a JIT AMM pool represents as much as half of the maximum practical trade size, and that a $10 million pool of popular assets with fully active [liquidity providers](https://iq.wiki/wiki/liquidity-providers) could in theory tolerate a directional batch of around $3.5 million to $4 million with sub-2% price impact in most cases, depending on the pair and global liquidity. He bases this estimate on observed instantaneous liquidity on major pairs using tools such as cryptosor.info.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy) He warns that capital efficiency cannot exceed 100% and that very large deposits exceeding available liquidity change the game theory, potentially incentivising market-maker collusion in which providers shift range orders away from market price to buy incoming deposits cheaply. As mitigations he suggests that arbitrageurs could make counter-deposits within the same block to absorb batch price impact, and that extremely large deposits could be automatically split across upcoming batches — a feature not planned early on but addable by protocol upgrade.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy)​

### The FLIP Token Model

Harman has written at length on the economics of [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip)'s FLIP token, which has no hard cap on supply. He notes that investors have described the supply as "infinite" but states he prefers the term "elastic."[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy) He likens the emission style broadly to [Ethereum](https://iq.wiki/wiki/ethereum)'s EIP-1559 model, describing the design as "smashing an exchange's business model straight into EIP-1559" and calling it simple to model, honest, and giving FLIP a realistic chance of becoming a deflationary asset.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy) Under the model, set emission rates mint new tokens for [validator](https://iq.wiki/wiki/validator) rewards, liquidity incentives, and other programmatic initiatives, while a counterbalancing burn mechanism removes tokens: a small [USDC](https://iq.wiki/wiki/usdc) fee taken from every swap is used to buy FLIP in a built-in [USDC](https://iq.wiki/wiki/usdc)/FLIP pool, and those purchased tokens are automatically burned.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy)​

Harman provides an illustrative projection in which an exchange charging 0.1% on $500 million of daily volume would generate $182,500,000 in annual revenue; buying $182 million of tokens over a year at an average price of $10 would amount to 18.2 million tokens, which he maps to over a fifth of the initial FLIP supply. He states that [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) anticipates between 11% and 16% inflation per year and that, if fees reached the illustrative level, FLIP supply could decrease over time under current models, while including a disclaimer that the model may change and nothing is guaranteed.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy) He argues that fees are directed to burning rather than straight to [validators](https://iq.wiki/wiki/validator) so that non-validator token holders also benefit, and because validators must provide economic security at all times and could drop out if fees were an unreliable income; a regular emission, meanwhile, is useful for bootstrapping liquidity in pools that do not yet earn fees.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy)​

### Critique of Governance Tokens

Within the same body of work, Harman authored a section titled "DeFi — The Dangerous Game of Governance Tokens," arguing that [governance tokens](https://iq.wiki/wiki/governance-tokens) are generally not [utility tokens](https://iq.wiki/wiki/utility-token). Using [Compound](https://iq.wiki/wiki/compound) and its [COMP](https://iq.wiki/wiki/comp) token as a focal example, he notes that COMP was distributed to lenders and borrowers and used for [yield farming](https://iq.wiki/wiki/yield-farming), and claims that [Compound](https://iq.wiki/wiki/compound) sold 24% of its entire supply to investors while vesting 22.5% of supply to itself. He asserts that Compound's proposal system and COMP's utility are limited in practice, and draws parallels between governance-token issuance and modern monetary theory.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy) He contrasts these with the design choices of Blockswap and Loki, which he presents as avoiding inflationary pitfalls, and proposes burning Loki as user fees on Blockswap to pay for vault [node](https://iq.wiki/wiki/node) operator [collateral](https://iq.wiki/wiki/collateral) emission.[\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy)​

## Developments

​[Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) has continued to add chains and product lines. On June 19, 2025, the protocol launched support for TRON, enabling the stablecoin-heavy chain to move assets natively between [Bitcoin](https://iq.wiki/wiki/bitcoin), [Ethereum](https://iq.wiki/wiki/ethereum), [Solana](https://iq.wiki/wiki/solana), and other major chains; Harman marked the launch as a "big unlock for volume potentials."[\[3\]](#cite-id-nt51jpz0f4) According to a Chainflip post relayed through Harman's account, TRON became the project's biggest chain launch, exceeding $25 million in cross-chain volume in its first 30 days — more than three times the volume of Solana's launch month — and went live across integrations including [MetaMask](https://iq.wiki/wiki/metamask), Rango Exchange, [Symbiosis](https://iq.wiki/wiki/symbiosis), [ShapeShift](https://iq.wiki/wiki/shapeshift), Cake Wallet, Thorwallet, GemWallet, and leodex.io.[\[3\]](#cite-id-nt51jpz0f4)​

Chainflip also moved into lending. On February 4, 2025, the project announced that Chainflip Lending had gone live, which Chainflip promoted as allowing users to borrow against [Bitcoin](https://iq.wiki/wiki/bitcoin) without selling, wrapping, or triggering a taxable event, with support for BTC, [ETH](https://iq.wiki/wiki/ether-eth), [SOL](https://iq.wiki/wiki/solana-sol), [USDC](https://iq.wiki/wiki/usdc), and [USDT](https://iq.wiki/wiki/tether).[\[3\]](#cite-id-nt51jpz0f4) Harman said the feature "shipped in less than 6 months on top of existing, proven infrastructure," crediting his team.[\[3\]](#cite-id-nt51jpz0f4) In August 2025, he highlighted a large single swap, and an automated Chainflip bot reported a $2.76 million cross-chain trade of 34.93 BTC to 26,507.5 SOL settled in 42 minutes via the protocol's Boost feature — faster than the 62-minute native route — at 0.44% below market.[\[3\]](#cite-id-nt51jpz0f4)​

Harman has been present on social media since joining in February 2018, where he continues to promote Chainflip's development and expresses interests beyond crypto, including support signalled through the pairing of the European Union and Ukraine flags in his profile bio.[\[3\]](#cite-id-nt51jpz0f4)​

## Interviews

#### Oxen and Privacy #01

On April 9, 2021, Simon Harman, CEO and founder of Oxen, was interviewed by the Crypto Finder YouTube channel about Oxen and its associated projects. During the interview, Harman discussed the development of Oxen, its approach to privacy, and applications including [Session](https://iq.wiki/wiki/session) and Lokinet. He stated that the project originated in 2017 and 2018 amid the emergence of new [blockchain](https://iq.wiki/wiki/blockchain) networks, with an initial focus on applying blockchain infrastructure to privacy technologies. Harman cited Signal, Tor, and Monero as influences on the project's development.

[YOUTUBE@VID](CKrXtsRr4mY)

Harman described Session as a messaging application that does not require telephone numbers for account creation, instead using public keys as identifiers. He explained that the application combines end-to-end encryption with pseudonymous accounts and an onion routing network operated by the Oxen infrastructure. According to Harman, this architecture was intended to prevent the disclosure of users' IP addresses and reduce the availability of metadata indicating which users were communicating with each other.

The interview also addressed the planned integration of [cryptocurrency](https://iq.wiki/wiki/cryptocurrency) payments into Session. Harman said that enabling users to transfer funds through the application had been considered as part of the project's development, while also identifying application-store requirements as a constraint on how such functionality could be implemented. He specifically referred to policies imposed by Apple and Google as factors that needed to be considered when developing features for the application.

Harman also discussed the transition from Loki to Oxen. He attributed the change to the development of the project's technology and the expansion of its scope beyond the original Loki ecosystem. He explained that technologies developed for Oxen's communication and routing infrastructure could also be made available to other applications and developers. The rebranding was also associated with the use of the Loki name by other entities, including a Marvel character.

Another topic discussed was the Oxen Service [Node](https://iq.wiki/wiki/node) network, which Harman described as infrastructure used to support functions including messaging and onion routing. He explained that node operators could stake Oxen tokens and receive rewards for providing network infrastructure. Harman also discussed a proposed subscription model for Session and other services, under which revenue could be used to purchase Oxen tokens from the market and subsequently remove them from circulation through [token burns](https://iq.wiki/wiki/token-burn).

The possibility of implementing an anonymous [stablecoin](https://iq.wiki/wiki/stablecoin) was also discussed. Harman stated that Oxen's technology could support such a system but identified regulatory considerations, technical requirements, and adoption as factors that would need to be addressed. He clarified that an anonymous stablecoin was not part of the project's roadmap at the time of the interview.

Harman further discussed [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip), a project that had emerged from the Oxen ecosystem. He described Chainflip as a [decentralized exchange](https://iq.wiki/wiki/decentralized-exchange) protocol intended to facilitate asset swaps across different blockchain networks. The examples mentioned in the interview included [Bitcoin](https://iq.wiki/wiki/bitcoin), [Polkadot](https://iq.wiki/wiki/polkadot), and [ERC-20](https://iq.wiki/wiki/erc-20) tokens. Harman also discussed an allocation of Chainflip tokens for Oxen holders as part of the project's planned distribution.

Lokinet was another subject covered during the interview. Harman described it as an onion routing network developed alongside [Session](https://iq.wiki/wiki/session) and referred to the demand for technologies intended to provide private internet access. He also discussed the growth of Session's user base following increased public attention toward private messaging after Elon Musk publicly recommended Signal in early 2021. According to Harman, this event contributed to increased interest in alternatives to established messaging applications.

When asked about other [blockchain](https://iq.wiki/wiki/blockchain) projects, Harman mentioned [Uniswap](https://iq.wiki/wiki/uniswap) and [Arweave](https://iq.wiki/wiki/arweave). He discussed Uniswap in the context of decentralized token exchanges and referred to Arweave as a decentralized storage protocol. Harman compared Arweave with Filecoin and expressed the view that Arweave's approach was less complex. These statements reflected Harman's own assessment of the projects discussed during the interview. [\[3\]](#cite-id-nt51jpz0f4) 

#### Chainflip: Cross-Chain DEX #02

On December 10, 2025, Simon Harman, CEO and co-founder of [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip), appeared on the MSV Podcast hosted by Szabolcs Gergely of Morningstar Ventures. The discussion covered Chainflip's architecture for cross-chain swaps, its [validator](https://iq.wiki/wiki/validator) network, transaction costs, user interface, FLIP token, and approach to [blockchain](https://iq.wiki/wiki/blockchain) integrations.

[YOUTUBE@VID](R7guU-zbiNA)

Harman described [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) as a [decentralized exchange](https://iq.wiki/wiki/decentralized-exchange) for native cross-chain swaps rather than a bridge. He explained that some cross-chain transactions involve moving an asset between networks through a bridge before performing a separate swap. According to Harman, Chainflip uses a permissionless network of 150 validators and an application-specific [blockchain](https://iq.wiki/wiki/blockchain) called the State Chain to process swaps. The system is designed to support transactions between assets located on different networks, including [Bitcoin](https://iq.wiki/wiki/bitcoin) and [Ethereum](https://iq.wiki/wiki/ethereum).

According to Harman, [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) handles the trading operations through its validator network and State Chain rather than executing the swap calculations directly on the external networks involved in a transaction. Users therefore primarily incur network costs when transferring assets to the protocol's vault. Harman contrasted this model with transactions involving multiple smart contracts on [Ethereum](https://iq.wiki/wiki/ethereum), which can require additional gas payments for swapping and bridging operations.

The discussion also addressed the relationship between centralized and [decentralized exchanges](https://iq.wiki/wiki/decentralized-exchange). Harman said [centralized exchanges](https://iq.wiki/wiki/cex-centralized-exchange) remain an entry point for users converting fiat currencies into crypto assets, while decentralized exchanges are used for transactions between crypto assets. He attributed potential growth in decentralized exchange usage to factors such as pricing, slippage, transaction costs, wallet integration, and the absence of centralized exchange verification requirements. He also referenced the integration of decentralized exchange and cross-chain services into wallets and aggregation platforms as part of the development of on-chain trading infrastructure.

​[Chainflip's](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) interface and deposit channels were also discussed. Harman explained that the protocol can create unique deposit addresses associated with its vault for individual swaps. Users can send assets to these addresses without necessarily connecting a wallet directly to the interface. He said the mechanism was influenced by the earlier model used by ShapeShift. Chainflip also provides a software development kit (SDK) that can be used by [decentralized applications](https://iq.wiki/wiki/decentralized-application) to incorporate cross-chain swaps and messaging into their applications.

Harman described the FLIP token as part of [Chainflip's](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) [validator](https://iq.wiki/wiki/validator) and network security system. According to his explanation, FLIP is used as collateral for validators and in validator auctions, with a limited number of validator positions planned for the network. He also described a mechanism in which protocol activity is used to purchase FLIP with USDC, after which the purchased tokens are burned. [Liquid staking](https://iq.wiki/wiki/liquid-staking) services were also mentioned as another component of the token's ecosystem.

The interview covered [Chainflip's](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) criteria for adding support for additional [blockchains](https://iq.wiki/wiki/blockchain). Harman said the team considers factors including market demand, available liquidity, maintenance requirements, and whether an integration can provide competitive pricing or lower transaction costs. He identified non-EVM networks such as [Solana](https://iq.wiki/wiki/solana) and the [Cosmos](https://iq.wiki/wiki/cosmos) ecosystem as areas under consideration. For networks that are not directly integrated, Chainflip can also use aggregation services to provide routes involving other blockchain networks.

Harman also discussed the technical approach used to support different [blockchain](https://iq.wiki/wiki/blockchain) architectures. He explained that [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) has implementations for [EVM](https://iq.wiki/wiki/ethereum-virtual-machine-evm) networks, [Bitcoin](https://iq.wiki/wiki/bitcoin) and Substrate-based networks, allowing the protocol to address different transaction and signature models. He stated that this framework is intended to facilitate the addition of networks that fit the supported technical categories and meet the project's criteria for integration.

At the end of the interview, Harman discussed the project's development plans, including the [Chainflip](https://iq.wiki/wiki/chainflip) [mainnet](https://iq.wiki/wiki/mainnet) launch, validator auctions, the FLIP token generation event, additional [staking](https://iq.wiki/wiki/staking) and custody integrations, and further security auditing. He also identified integrations with external platforms and continued development of the protocol as areas of focus following the launch. [\[4\]](#cite-id-lbw926zusy)