Building DeFi Applications Using Cross-Blockchain Interaction on the Wish Swap Platform

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors review the recent development in blockchains and how different blockchains can be interacted with each other. 

Overall the information is quite interesting and discusses a recent hot topic of blockchains.

My comments are as follows.

1) Authors need to discuss more about smart contracts. The information provided is more applied. 

2) How the authors take into account the new developments in blockchain which are more energy efficient. 

3) Are the authors discussing all possibilities regarding the cross-communication of blockchains. There is a lot of talk around it recently. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 (Please also see in PDF in the attachment)

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for valuable comments and suggestions. We have reworked and updated the manuscript according to your comments; please see the detailed response below.

• Authors need to discuss more about smart contracts. The information provided is more applied. 

We have extended section 2.3 DeFi and Smart-Contracts with more information about smart contracts, their functionality, development process and relation to DeFi. We added the discussion on complex transactions in the blockchain supported by smart contracts, the difference of the development of smart contracts from conventional programming. The updated text is marked with sea-green color.

• How the authors take into account the new developments in blockchain which are more energy efficient. 

We added a paragraph on potential energy-efficiency of cross-chain solutions in Section 3 Related Work. In addition, we significantly extended the review of related work in Section 3. The updated text is marked with sea-green color.

3) Are the authors discussing all possibilities regarding the cross-communication of blockchains. There is a lot of talk around it recently. 

We extended Section 3 Related work with more information on current cross-chain developments and solutions. We considered at least 15 more related studies and projects, gave a short reference and analysis on them. The updated text is marked with sea-green color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors examine the essence of the DeFi industry specifically, and the possibilities for overcoming the problem of cross-blockchain interaction generally. They present present their approach, analyse the results of the proposed solution, and demonstrate how a sample presale app can be built based on the proposed concept.

My key findings are given as under: 
1.    The paper's length is excessive. A lot of unnecessary material is presented up to section 4. At the very least, try to cut it down to 1500 to 2000 words. You can hire a native English-speaking editor who specialises in this area to assist you. 
2.    The title is not unique. I suggest updating it and mentioning name of your application in it. 
3.    The literature review is a little short. Try citing at least 15 scientific and research-based studies. 
4.    You did not compare your approach which existing state of the art.
5.    Please refrain from using bold terms. 
6.    In the abstract, introduction, and conclusion sections, please explain how and why your method is unique and worth exploring. 
7.    The study implications, study limits, and future directions should all be presented clearly in the Conclusions section. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 (Please also see in PDF in the attachment)

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for valuable comments and suggestions. We have reworked and updated the manuscript according to your comments; please see the detailed response below.

In this paper, the authors examine the essence of the DeFi industry specifically, and the possibilities for overcoming the problem of cross-blockchain interaction generally. They present present their approach, analyse the results of the proposed solution, and demonstrate how a sample presale app can be built based on the proposed concept.

My key findings are given as under: 
1.    The paper's length is excessive. A lot of unnecessary material is presented up to section 4. At the very least, try to cut it down to 1500 to 2000 words. You can hire a native English-speaking editor who specialises in this area to assist you. 

We have reworked and reduced the text in Section 4 removing unnecessary technical details (in particular Subsections 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3). The information that was necessary to keep on our opinion is re-written in condensed form. We reconsidered the material in other sections as well trying to optimize the length and the content. The significant parts of the updated text are marked with sea-green color while minor corrections in the text are not marked.

2. The title is not unique. I suggest updating it and mentioning name of your application in it. 

The title has been changed to point out the particular platform considered in the manuscript: Building DeFi applications using cross-blockchain interaction on the Wish Swap platform

3. The literature review is a little short. Try citing at least 15 scientific and research-based studies. 

We extended Section 3 Related work with more information on current cross-chain developments and solutions. We considered at least 15 more related studies and projects, gave a short reference and analysis on them. The updated text is marked with sea-green color.

4. You did not compare your approach which existing state of the art.

We clarified the comparison of the presented cross-chain solution with existing solutions in Introduction and Section 5.6 Analysis of results obtained, and extended Conclusions with an outline of improved cross-chain bridge architecture with improved fault-tolerance for cross-chain interaction between contracts of the platform by using multiple backend nodes and multisignature. The updated text is marked with sea-green color.

5. Please refrain from using bold terms. 

Thank you for the suggestion, bold terms were removed.

6.  In the abstract, introduction, and conclusion sections, please explain how and why your method is unique and worth exploring. 

We added additional explanations to the abstract, introduction, and conclusion sections trying to make the contribution clearer. The updated text is marked with sea-green color.

7. The study implications, study limits, and future directions should all be presented clearly in the Conclusions section. 

We added additional explanations on study implications, study limits, and future directions to the conclusion section trying to make it clearer. The updated text is marked with sea-green color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper entitled „Building DeFi applications using cross-blockchain interaction protocol” tackles the problem of combining and interacting a different blockchains, in particular presenting the elaborated solution, along with discussing its pros and cons.

However, there are some issues which should be considered by the Authors during paper revision.

1. Subsection 2.2 is defined as “Usability of DeFi”, however, this subsection presents the benefits of the DeFi. There is nothing about its usability. Therefore, I recommend the change of the subsection naming.

Moreover, in this line of thinking, please consider changing the name of the Section 2 along with adding more content, regarding the DeFi Development and perception, as well as the research gap which should be explicitly defined. At the current version of the paper, I feel a lit bit confused after reading this section.

2. Section 3 is somehow is even more obscure, while comparing with the Section 2. First of all, the Authors did not discuss the related works, instead they described selected concepts and, frankly speaking one technology, namely Polkadot. This section needs to be improved, since now, it is confusing.

Moreover, the rest of the paper is even more obscure. Therefore, I strongly recommend heavily reading and rewriting the paper. Since I see the potential to publish the results obtained from the conducted study, my recommendation is a major revision.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 (Please also see in PDF in the attachment)

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for valuable comments and suggestions. We have reworked and updated the manuscript according to your comments, please see the detailed response below.

The paper entitled „Building DeFi applications using cross-blockchain interaction protocol” tackles the problem of combining and interacting a different blockchains, in particular presenting the elaborated solution, along with discussing its pros and cons.

However, there are some issues which should be considered by the Authors during paper revision.

1. Subsection 2.2 is defined as “Usability of DeFi”, however, this subsection presents the benefits of the DeFi. There is nothing about its usability. Therefore, I recommend the change of the subsection naming.

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency. We have updated the content and renamed Subsection 2.2 to Application of DeFi services.

Moreover, in this line of thinking, please consider changing the name of the Section 2 along with adding more content, regarding the DeFi Development and perception, as well as the research gap which should be explicitly defined. At the current version of the paper, I feel a lit bit confused after reading this section.

We have updated the content and the title of Section 2 highlighting the research gap of cross-chain interaction in this section and also in Introduction. The updated text is marked with sea-green color.

2. Section 3 is somehow is even more obscure, while comparing with the Section 2. First of all, the Authors did not discuss the related works, instead they described selected concepts and, frankly speaking one technology, namely Polkadot. This section needs to be improved, since now, it is confusing.

We extended Section 3 Related work with more information on current cross-chain developments and solutions. We considered at least 15 more related studies and projects, gave a short reference and analysis on them. The updated text is marked with sea-green color.

Moreover, the rest of the paper is even more obscure. Therefore, I strongly recommend heavily reading and rewriting the paper. Since I see the potential to publish the results obtained from the conducted study, my recommendation is a major revision.

We have reviewed the manuscript, reworked and reduced the text removing unnecessary technical details. The information that was necessary to keep is re-written in condensed form.  We clarified the comparison of the presented cross-chain solution with existing solutions in and extended Conclusions with an outline of improved cross-chain bridge architecture which is under development currently. The significant parts of the updated text are marked with sea-green color while minor corrections in the text are not marked.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you. I'm satisfied with your responses.

Reviewer 3 Report

First and foremost, I would like to thank the Authors for their effort and concern in revisiting thei paper. 

The current version is sutiable for publication since it presents well-written and well-organized paper.