Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interoperability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Layer 0 demonstrates Wyoming’s Frontier token and pitches shared‑reserve, high‑throughput architecture to New Hampshire commission
Summary
Layer 0 Labs presented its interoperability stack, the Wyoming Frontier state token case study and a new high‑performance blockchain (Xero), and discussed options for shared reserves, state verification of cross‑chain transfers and procurement safeguards; Wyoming’s executive director described the RFP and anti‑lock‑in terms.
Layer 0 Labs described to the Commission on the Study of Stable Tokens how its messaging protocol and verifier networks power cross‑chain transfers and the Wyoming Frontier stable token, and outlined a model states could adapt to issue interoperable tokens.
“Today, the Frontier token is live across several blockchains,” said Nyle York, Layer 0 customer success lead, describing Wyoming’s implementation. He said the Frontier token uses an OFT token standard for native mint/burn across chains and that the Wyoming state verifies every cross‑chain transfer before the workflow completes.
Layer 0’s chief business officer, Simon Bax, explained the company’s security model — decentralized verifier networks (DBNs) — that allow issuers to configure verification rules (whitelists, blacklist/sanctions screening, freezing) and to choose which verifiers must sign a cross‑chain transfer. Bax said Layer 0 connects “roughly 170 different blockchains” and supports many large stablecoin issuers and custodial partners.
The company also presented Xero, a new layer‑1 blockchain the company says is optimized for capital markets with architectural changes intended to increase throughput and reduce cost. Bax described several components (novel storage layer, ZK‑based proofs, scheduler optimizations) and cited partner interest from institutional actors; these are company claims and were presented for technical evaluation.
Representative questions focused on two policy issues: (1) whether states should pursue a shared reserve or open issuance layer (a shared liquidity layer that would make distinct state tokens 1:1 redeemable), and (2) whether procuring services from entities domiciled outside the U.S. raises vendor‑lock‑in or recourse concerns. Anthony Appalo, executive director of the Wyoming Stable Token Commission, said Wyoming’s procurement process prioritized technical capability but also allocated points for domiciled providers and required contractual ability for the state to own key technology components over time.
Why it matters: Layer 0’s work with Wyoming provides a concrete implementation the commission can study as it considers whether New Hampshire should authorize, issue or otherwise integrate with a state‑aligned stable token. The procurement, governance and verification choices will determine how much operational control a state retains and what remedies are available if a service provider or protocol fails.
Next steps: Layer 0 offered to work with New Hampshire on design and distribution details. The commission discussed additional meetings in May and asked staff to take follow‑up steps on design options and vendor questions.
