An under-recognized advantage of @Chainlink CCIP for asset issuers is the ability to retain full control over your cross-chain tokens There's no need to compromise on sovereignty when maximizing security, you can actually achieve both: No Vendor Lock-In Unlike some cross-chain providers, which vendor locks issuers through proprietary token standards that makes it difficult to switch, CCIP was designed to eliminate vendor lock-in Issuers do not need to embed CCIP-specific code into their token contracts or adopt proprietary standards, they can just grant CCIP burn/mint authority over their existing token contract to enable cross-chain transfers This means issuers are free to revoke these burn/mint privileges at any time to sever the tie to CCIP, and are not left with any residual CCIP code in their token contract that would limit future optionality The Cross-Chain Token (CCT) standard enabled by CCIP is not a proprietary standard, it just a term that describes tokens that use CCIP for cross-chain transfers Self Ownership With CCIP, issuers own all instances of their token contract and CCIP token pool deployments across every blockchain they choose to make their token available on CCIP tokens pools are the interface between the token contract and CCIP, which defines the token transfer mechanism that should be used when moving assets cross-chain (e.g., burn-and-mint or lock-and-mint transfers) Because token pools are external to the CCIP protocol, and within full control of the issuer, that means they are not locked into CCIP if they decide to switch providers at any point in the future There's also no concern with CCIP controlling your token contract or anything of the like, issuers lose not sovereignty over their tokens Custom Token Pools To enable teams to easily support CCIP for cross-chain transfers of their token, Chainlink built and offers multiple pre-audited token pool contracts that issuers can deploy (e.g., for standard ERC20 tokens) However, CCIP is agnostic to the underlying logic that the token pool uses, as long as it follows an expected interface Maybe you have a yield-bearing rebasing token whose accounting logic is different than a regular ERC20, you can create a custom token pool to account for that Maybe you need some additional allowlisting capability for regulatory compliance, that can be incorporated at the token contract level, as well as at the token pool level Token Developer Attestation Probably the most powerful CCIP feature introduced recently is the Token Developer Attestation which allows issuers to directly participate in the cross-chain verification process This feature introduces an additional security check in the cross-chain transfer process where issuers must attest to token burn/lock events on source chains before CCIP can mint/unlock tokens on destination chains This provides issuers more tailored control over how their tokens move across chains, which is critical for ensuring issuers have full control over the issuance of tokens and complying with relevant regulations (in the case of tokenized assets) CCIP is entirely agnostic to the verification logic that issuers decide to run, only requiring an Attestation API that CCIP can query to receive a cryptographic confirmation that is verified on destination chains With this feature, you get a baseline level of security guarantees with CCIP, while retaining full sovereign control over your tokens -- All of the above, along with other CCIP features I didn't mention, contribute to the fact that CCIP provides the highest level of cross-chain security, while maximizing asset issuer sovereignty Did I mention deploying a cross-chain token with CCIP is also permissionless? Anyone can use all of these features today