Ika Network: A Sub-Second Level MPC Infrastructure

1. Overview and Positioning of the Ika Network

Ika Network is an innovative MPC infrastructure strategically supported by the Sui Foundation, characterized by sub-second response times. Ika is highly compatible with Sui in terms of underlying design philosophy and will be directly integrated into the Sui development ecosystem in the future.

Ika is building a new type of security verification layer, serving both as a dedicated signature protocol for the Sui ecosystem and as a standardized cross-chain solution for the entire industry. Its layered design balances protocol flexibility and development convenience, and it is expected to become an important practice for the large-scale application of MPC technology in multi-chain scenarios.

1.1 Core Technology Analysis

The technical implementation of the Ika network revolves around high-performance distributed signatures, with key innovations including:

• 2PC-MPC Signature Protocol: Adopts an improved two-party MPC scheme, breaking down the signing operation into a process involving both "User" and "Ika Network".

• Parallel processing: Decomposing a single signature operation into multiple concurrent sub-tasks significantly improves speed by leveraging Sui's object parallel model.

• Large-scale node network: Supports thousands of nodes participating in signing, with each node holding only a part of the key shard.

• Cross-chain control and chain abstraction: Allowing smart contracts on other chains to directly control accounts in the Ika network (dWallet).

1.2 The impact of Ika on the Sui ecosystem

After Ika goes live, it may expand the capability boundaries of Sui:

• Bring cross-chain interoperability capabilities to Sui
• Provide a decentralized asset custody mechanism
• Simplify cross-chain interaction process
• Provide a multi-party verification mechanism for AI automation applications

1.3 Challenges Faced by Ika

• Needs to gain broader acceptance to become a "universal standard" for cross-chain interoperability.
• Difficulty in revoking MPC signing permissions
• Rely on the stability of the Sui network
• New challenges brought by the DAG consensus model

2. Comparison of projects based on FHE, TEE, ZKP, or MPC

2.1 FHE

Zama & Concrete:

• Adopting a "Layered Bootstrapping" strategy
• Support "Mixed Encoding"
• Provide "Key Packing" mechanism

Fhenix:

• Optimization for EVM instruction set
• Design off-chain oracle bridging module

2.2 TEE

Oasis Network:

• Introduce the concept of "layered trusted roots"
• Use the ParaTime interface
• Develop "Durability Log" module

2.3 ZKP

Aztec:

• Integrated "Incremental Recursion" technology
• Use parallelized depth-first search algorithm
• Provide "Light Node Mode"

2.4 MPC

Partisia Blockchain:

• Extension based on the SPDZ protocol
• Add "Preprocessing Module"
• Support dynamic load balancing

3. Privacy Computing FHE, TEE, ZKP and MPC

3.1 Overview of Different Privacy Computing Solutions

• Fully Homomorphic Encryption ( FHE ): allows arbitrary computations in an encrypted state.
• Trusted Execution Environment ( TEE ): Provides an isolated secure memory area to run code
• Multi-Party Secure Computation ( MPC ): Multi-party computation of function outputs without revealing private inputs
• Zero-Knowledge Proof ( ZKP ): Verifying a statement to be true without disclosing additional information

Adaptation scenarios of 3.2 FHE, TEE, ZKP and MPC

• Cross-chain signature: MPC and TEE are relatively suitable
• DeFi scenarios: MPC is widely used in multi-signature wallets, vault insurance, and other areas.
• AI and Data Privacy: FHE has obvious advantages in processing sensitive data.

3.3 Differentiation of Different Solutions

• Performance and latency: TEE is the lowest, FHE is the highest, ZKP and MPC are in between.
• Trust assumptions: FHE and ZKP do not require trust in third parties, TEE relies on hardware, MPC relies on participants.
• Scalability: ZKP and MPC inherently support horizontal scalability
• Integration Difficulty: TEE minimum, ZKP and FHE require dedicated circuits, MPC requires protocol stack integration

4. Market View and Future Outlook

• There is no single optimal solution; each technology has its advantages and limitations.
• Future trends may involve the complementarity and integration of various technologies.
• Modular solutions will become mainstream, allowing for the selection of appropriate technology combinations based on specific needs.