CASE 06 / EXPOSE THE CONNECTIONS
Five assets. One point of failure.
Trace shared dependencies and predict which specific action fails: issuer cash redemption, a bridge exit, host-chain transactions, or the backing of a claim.
Follow the case.
- Choose the disruption
Try unavailable reserve cash, missing bridge backing, a halted base chain, an offline sequencer or a collateral-price shock.
- Inspect connections
Reveal the issuer, bridge, chain, sequencer and collateral dependencies attached to each holding. A shared component may sit several steps away.
- Predict affected holdings
Mark holdings whose stated action or ultimate cash-redemption route is affected. Distinguish that route from an intermediate pool withdrawal or a local token transfer.
- Trace the result
Expand causal paths to see whether issuer cash redemption, the final bridge release on Anchor, or host-chain transactions cannot complete. Compare a different disruption through the same holdings.
The scenario controls load with JavaScript. The explanation, checklist and model boundaries remain available below.
TAKE IT WITH YOU
The question to keep asking.
Different asset names can share the same failure path. Identify the affected action or claim before estimating any loss.
YOUR PRACTICAL CHECKLIST
- What asset or obligation does this token represent?
- Which issuer, custodian or bridge stands behind it?
- Which exact action must work: local token transfer, pool withdrawal, bridge exit, or issuer cash redemption?
- Is the failure about missing assets, temporary access, market price or transaction availability?
- Which dependencies are shared with other holdings?
Model boundaries & mechanism sources
- Five invented holdings begin with reference values of $2,000 each. They do not represent actual assets, recommended allocations or live valuations.
- Failure effects name the affected action. An issuer cash-redemption delay does not freeze local token transfers, bridge releases or pool withdrawals. A base-chain halt can delay a bridge’s final release on that chain while local Lane transfers and pool withdrawals may still work, subject to their ordinary liquidity and rules.
- The bridge-loss case assumes a permanent 30% custody shortfall. The collateral case explicitly assumes liquidations leave bad debt; falling collateral does not always cause such a shortfall.
- The sequencer case covers the initial outage window. Protocol-specific forced inclusion, fallback exits, waiting periods and recovery are outside this model.
- Starting value linked to an effect is neither a loss estimate nor a total of frozen funds. The model makes no price forecast, contagion probability, legal-recovery claim or safety rating for unaffected holdings.
FOLLOW THE CONNECTIONS