Andrey Fedorov, STON.fi Dev: On Connecting TON To The World, The Real Barrier Holding Users Back, And Why AI Agents Are The Next Step In Cross-Chain Execution

As blockchain networks multiply and liquidity fragments throughout chains, the query of how customers transfer between ecosystems has turn out to be one of many defining infrastructure issues in crypto. Cross-chain execution, as soon as the area of technically refined customers navigating bridges and multi-wallet setups, is now the main focus of a rising variety of protocols trying to make the method invisible. For STON.fi, the most important DeFi protocol on TON, the launch of cross-chain swaps this summer time marks a deliberate shift in scope.

Andrey Fedorov, CMO and CBDO at STON.fi Dev, spoke with us about what meaning in follow. In the dialog, he coated the architectural decisions underpinning the Omniston protocol, why connecting TON and TRON was the logical first step, and what chain abstraction genuinely requires earlier than the time period turns into significant. Andrey Fedorov additionally mirrored on the place wallet-level fragmentation stays the true barrier for customers immediately, and the way AI brokers might finally redefine what cross-chain execution appears to be like like altogether.

STON.fi launched cross-chain swaps this summer time and is about to start the “One Swap. Across Chains” marketing campaign on September 15. Why is that this cross-chain layer necessary for the TON ecosystem and its customers? Why was now the proper time to maneuver past a single-chain AMM?

There are two sides to this. For TON, it’s principally about eradicating the liquidity boundary. The TON ecosystem has its personal customers and its personal DeFi financial system, however customers don’t dwell on one blockchain. They might maintain completely different belongings on completely different chains: USDT on TON, USDT on TRON, USDT on Base, different tokens on Ethereum, and so forth. That creates a liquidity boundary across the TON ecosystem. When it’s not linked to different networks, these customers can not entry different ecosystems straight from TON. They are successfully locked into one ecosystem until they manually transfer belongings between chains, and that’s exactly what cross-chain swaps clear up.

It additionally works in the wrong way. There are hundreds of thousands of customers on different chains who need entry to the TON financial system, and till now there was no easy approach to get there. Moving belongings from one other chain to TON was not straightforward. Now it’s a lot easier. To put it plainly: cross-chain is about connecting ecosystems in order that customers can attain the liquidity and the financial system wherever it lives.

On the query of timing: I might not say this summer time was the best window we had been ready for. We determined a very long time in the past that we would have liked to construct a cross-chain resolution. The window of alternative for cross-chain opened roughly two to a few years in the past and continues to be open. The purpose was by no means to launch in summer time 2026 particularly. The concept was to construct it as quickly as potential. It will not be a easy endeavor: there are genuinely tough technical issues concerned, particularly if you end up constructing one thing that didn’t beforehand exist out there. We launched this summer time as a result of there’s actual demand and we had been prepared.

The upcoming marketing campaign makes use of gamified onboarding with miles, Priority Passenger tickets, and restricted rewards. Why did STON.fi select this format? Why was gamification the proper strategy for introducing customers to cross-chain swaps?

There is an attention-grabbing downside with cross-chain: technologically, it’s changing into a lot easier, however psychologically it nonetheless feels sophisticated. If you inform a person they will use a cross-chain resolution with atomic execution, a resolver community, RFQ or HTLC settlements, and so forth, you’ll not appeal to them. It sounds too advanced and, frankly, off-putting.

So we determined to strategy the marketing campaign from the wrong way, utilizing a easy metaphor. We selected an airline metaphor: direct flights between chains. It is an intuitive mannequin. You fly between locations and gather miles alongside the best way, identical to on an actual flight. That transforms a technically advanced system into one thing a lot simpler to grasp. A person who will not be particularly technical doesn’t want to consider atomic execution or resolvers or HTLC. They simply suppose: I’m flying from chain A to chain B and amassing miles I can spend in an in-flight store.

On gamification particularly: past making the mannequin simpler to grasp, we wished to present customers a motive to attempt cross-chain swaps. Some persons are genuinely motivated by the power to maneuver belongings between chains, and we would like them to study by doing. But gamification additionally lowers the barrier for a lot of others. It makes it simpler to have interaction, to attempt completely different routes, and to maintain exploring. Altogether, it comes collectively as a easy, comprehensible, and genuinely participating expertise.

TRON was among the many first chains linked alongside main EVM networks. Given the vary of obtainable chains, why was TRON prioritised so early? What does this alternative reveal concerning the viewers STON.fi is constructing for?

TRON was a really deliberate alternative. We don’t choose chains primarily based on the place media consideration or social media dialog is concentrated. We are interested by the place actual customers and actual liquidity are, and TRON is without doubt one of the largest stablecoin networks in existence. It holds monumental stablecoin liquidity. The similar might be stated of TON, which additionally has a big person base and important stablecoin exercise. Connecting these two networks was a logical step.

There can be a technical dimension. For EVM chains, cross-chain options are comparatively plentiful. For TRON, there are far fewer choices, and those that exist are technically advanced, tough for customers to navigate, and unclear when it comes to gasoline and pockets necessities. That is exactly why we noticed TRON because the strongest candidate to start with.

While the business pursues intent-based solver networks, STON.fi makes use of HTLC escrows and impartial resolvers. What does this mannequin supply customers? What guided this architectural alternative?

These are literally roughly the identical factor relatively than two distinct fashions. We additionally use an intent-based solver community. When a person has an asset on one chain and needs a special asset on one other chain, they’re expressing an intent. Resolvers then compete to execute that intent. So sure, we use an intent-based solver community, and we additionally use HTLC escrows. But HTLCs are the cryptographic mechanism that makes settlement secure. They are usually not a separate mannequin.

To put it merely: competitors determines who executes, and cryptography determines whether or not settlement is secure. A person expresses an intent, resolvers compete to fulfil it, and the protocol ensures everyone seems to be protected.

For finish customers, none of this must be seen. They have an asset right here, they need an asset there, they see a quote, and it executes. That is the complete expertise from their perspective.

“Chain abstraction” has turn out to be a central theme in 2026. How do you outline chain abstraction within the context of your product? What does a completely abstracted expertise seem like for a Telegram-native person?

A totally abstracted expertise, for my part, is one the place customers merely don’t take into consideration blockchains. Today, a typical person’s course of appears to be like one thing like this: I’ve USDT on Ethereum, I need to purchase one thing on TON, so I must bridge belongings, I want ETH for gasoline, I want two wallets linked on each networks, and so forth. That will not be chain abstracted, as a result of the person is reasoning when it comes to chains all through. The underlying intent was at all times easy: I’ve this asset and I need that one. But the execution will not be easy, and so customers are pressured to suppose in chain phrases.

A series-abstracted expertise is when customers by no means interact with that layer in any respect. They have an asset, they need one other asset, they get it.

I might add this: we’ll know that cross-chain has actually turn out to be chain abstracted when the product class itself disappears from the dialog. Right now, we speak about cross-chain swaps, about shifting belongings between chains, about this being a brand new functionality. That language is itself the other of abstraction. True abstraction will likely be when nobody says “cross-chain” anymore. When we merely say: you’ve got this, you need that, right here it’s.

Despite progress in hiding bridges and wrapped belongings, cross-chain DeFi nonetheless presents friction. What stays the most important barrier for customers immediately? What is the subsequent frontier STON.fi intends to take away?

The largest downside at the moment is fragmentation on the pockets degree. Users should handle a number of wallets throughout completely different blockchains, with separate balances, and infrequently with identically named belongings which might be technically distinct. USDT on TON, USDT on TRON, and USDT on Ethereum carry the identical ticker however dwell on completely different chains. From the person’s perspective it appears to be like like one asset. Technically, it’s three completely different belongings.

The UX has improved. Multi-chain wallets imply you not want a separate pockets for each chain as you as soon as did. But friction stays, since you nonetheless have to pick the proper community, and balances shift relying on which one is energetic. 

I just lately opened a pockets anticipating a non-zero stability and noticed zero. For a second it was alarming. Then I realised I had the unsuitable community chosen, switched it, and the stability reappeared. I work with this each day, so I figured it out shortly. A typical person wouldn’t, and that have is disorienting. That is the principle impediment proper now, although it improves day by day.

TON has surpassed 100 million pockets sign-ups, many originating from Telegram. Do you consider the subsequent wave of crypto customers will enter via social platforms relatively than conventional monetary apps? How does that person profile change what cross-chain execution must seem like?

Social platforms will likely be one of many main distribution channels, sure. But the important thing distinction is context. Users inside a social platform are usually not fascinated by finance. They are usually not opening Telegram with the intent to swap belongings between chains. They are messaging a good friend or studying a channel. They might encounter a possibility linked to DeFi, however their beginning context is completely completely different from somebody opening a monetary app with the express intention to do one thing with their cash.

That distinction issues for the way cross-chain execution must behave. In a conventional monetary app, the person arrives with a monetary intent. In Telegram, they don’t. That hole must be bridged completely by the product. The complexity must be fully invisible, as a result of the person didn’t arrive ready to have interaction with it.

What is the excellence between embedding monetary providers right into a messaging platform versus a conventional monetary interface? Which customers stand to profit most from this?

The core distinction is context. In a monetary app, customers arrive with a monetary intent. In Telegram, they don’t, and the product has to bridge that hole completely.

For Telegram particularly, I feel the most effective expertise is one the place customers can ship belongings as simply as they ship messages. That appears to be what Telegram itself is constructing towards. We have already got Wallet constructed into Telegram, which makes it easy to ship tokens to pals. Pavel Durov has introduced additional pockets developments, and from what has been shared publicly it appears to be like like sending tokens to pals might turn out to be even easier. That is the course I count on issues to maneuver.

Your staff has been working vibe coding classes and constructing AI-agent-friendly documentation. What position do you see AI taking part in in STON.fi’s cross-chain execution within the close to future?

There are a couple of dimensions to this. First, we use AI internally. We run vibe coding workshops and hackathons the place contributors use AI instruments, and it really works effectively.

Second, our protocol is AI-friendly. If a developer desires to construct an software utilizing Omniston, they’ll feed our documentation to an AI agent and it’ll combine the protocol. We have designed the documentation with that use case in thoughts.

Third, and most related to execution: AI-driven DeFi execution has been mentioned within the business for a minimum of two years, however I’ve not but seen a very robust product in that area. What I do see is the infrastructure enhancing. We now have embedded wallets and agentic tooling, and the situations for AI brokers to really act on customers’ belongings are beginning to exist.

The pure subsequent step for us is for Omniston to function the execution layer that an AI agent makes use of. The agent understands the person’s intent, and even defines it on their behalf, after which makes use of our protocol to execute. That is the place I see this heading.

Looking three years forward, the place do you see STON.fi positioned out there? What is the only biggest alternative that would speed up the venture’s trajectory?

Right now, most individuals consider STON.fi as the most important DeFi protocol on TON, or just as a swap software. TON is the place we began and it stays necessary to us. But the bigger alternative, for each STON.fi and Omniston, is to turn out to be an execution layer that connects TON, TRON, and different EVM and non-EVM chains. If in a few years folks cease pondering of STON.fi as a DeFi app on TON and begin pondering of it as a multi-chain liquidity protocol or an execution layer, that’s our purpose.

We have two merchandise to get there. STON.fi is the buyer product. We use it for product growth, UX experimentation, distribution, and as a showcase of what our infrastructure can do. Users of STON.fi don’t must suppose in technical phrases. They simply use the app.

Omniston is the second product. It powers STON.fi and it powers different functions. Our purpose for Omniston over the subsequent two to a few years is that it turns into extensively recognised as an execution layer: a B2B infrastructure that builders and protocols construct on. That is the trajectory we’re working towards.

The put up Andrey Fedorov, STON.fi Dev: On Connecting TON To The World, The Real Barrier Holding Users Back, And Why AI Agents Are The Next Step In Cross-Chain Execution appeared first on Metaverse Post.