Quantitative transactions and on-chain finance: Overledger and CCIP address the same banking busines

Disclaimer: Content does not constitute investment advice. Trading involves risks—please invest with caution!

Quant and Chainlink: A bank-level interoperability solution that achieves the same goal

Quant and Chainlink target the same customer group: banks that want to connect their systems to multiple blockchains but are unwilling to bind to a single network. However, the two projects address this issue at different levels.

Quant builds an abstraction layer on top of existing networks and strips the decision to choose which blockchain to connect from banks, while Chainlink establishes a standard for cross-network transmission, with multiple independent verification teams confirming each transaction. This distinction may sound technical, but it has profound implications for the practical questions of "who will banks ultimately need to trust" and "whether the project's tokens are necessary." These two points will be elaborated on in detail below. Please note that this article does not constitute any purchase advice and does not involve any price target forecast.

The same task, two designs: abstraction layer and messaging standards

Banks that want to represent tokenized deposits or securities face a simple problem: There are not only one blockchain on the market, but dozens of them, and they cannot communicate directly with each other. If each chain is connected one by one, banks need to build separate integrated interfaces for each network and maintain these interfaces indefinitely.

Quant's answer is Abstraction 。其核心产品Overledger位于网络层之上，银行的应用程序只需与该抽象层通信即可。底层使用哪条区块链仅作为一个配置选项。Chainlink给出的答案是标准化（Standardisation）。其跨链互操作协议（CCIP）定义了网络间传输的数据格式及确认机制。虽然银行仍需更接近底层网络进行操作，但所有连接都能获得统一的交互形态。

我们在关于Quant和Overledger的深度解析中已详细阐述了其基本原理。本文旨在对比说明Chainlink的不同之处。

Fusion Rollup：连接74个网络的状态锚定

据Quant称，其Fusion Rollup自2026年6月2日起已在主网运行。根据Quant官方公告，该架构连接了包括以太坊、比特币、Solana和XRP Ledger在内的74条区块链。该公司将其称为“Layer 2.5”，因为传统的Layer 2通常将其状态锚定在单一的底层区块链上，而Fusion则同时将状态写入多个网络。

对此有两个重要的注意事项：第一，74这个数字来自公司自身宣传，并非经过独立验证的数据；第二，主网上的连接并不等同于银行生产环境中的实际使用。在评估该项目时，应将“已连接的网络数量”与“实际被使用的网络数量”区分开来。

Both projects are actively pursuing institutional clients rather than retail investors. Therefore, the actual use of the token becomes a key consideration.

CCIP: Movement and multiple confirmations of data and tokens

Chainlink describes CCIP on its website as a standard that allows institutions, issuers and applications to connect digital value between different blockchains. Objects moved include two types: messages that contain instructions to be executed on the target network, and tokens that are moved through so-called cross-chain tokens and token pools (the latter are still held by the issuer).

The heart of security lies in the sentence on this page: Every transmission over CCIP is acknowledged by multiple oracle networks. [TAG In addition, publishers or their designated third parties can add additional checkpoints, which Chainlink calls "cross-chain validators." Regulatory compliance checks are performed in a separate unit, the Automated Compliance Engine.

Attribution of trust: Quant's single point anchoring versus Chainlink's distributed confirmation

The real difference is here, it's not a matter of personal preference.

For Quant: Banks rely on an abstraction layer for one company's operations, with its state anchored on multiple blockchains. The advantage lies in simplicity: one integration, one contract counterparty, one invoice. The price is high reliance on the service provider.

For Chainlink: The confirmation of transactions is scattered across multiple independent oracle networks, and issuers can add checkpoints themselves. The advantage is that no single group can approve a transaction alone. The price is that the setup is more complex because the bank needs to process more components.

What do regulators care about?

What determines a bank's choice is not the elegance of the design, but which architecture can be explained clearly to regulators. Reliance on a single service provider is not unfamiliar at the regulatory level and is often seen as outsourcing. Dispersing safeguards into multiple independent groups would not create such contractual relationships, but banks need to explain why these groups would not fail at the same time.

Banking project progress: Quant's tokenized deposits and Chainlink's Swift connection

From an evidence perspective, the status quo of the two is similar: they have well-known partners, but have not yet been put into large-scale production. Quant's most famous project is the tokenized deposit project commissioned by The Clearing House, a U.S. clearing house, which we mentioned in our September 26 article. According to the clearing house, the project will start in 2027 and is still in the future planning stage.

Similarly, Chainlink demonstrated its collaboration with Swift and our banking standards collaboration with Infosys (reported on September 29 and September 24 respectively). Taken together, there are only a few announced projects for both projects, and there are very few cases that actually operate in the daily business of banks today.

Market size: LINK is approximately 8.9 billion euros, QNT is approximately 3.3 billion euros

According to CoinGecko's market data, as of October 7, LINK's price is approximately 11.94 euros, and its market value is approximately 8.9 billion euros, ranking 15th. The price of QNT is approximately 224.97 euros and the market value is approximately 3.3 billion euros, ranking 33rd. Chainlink is a larger project, but not an order of magnitude difference, but a relationship of about two and a half times.

Compared with the total market value, the supply structure is more worthy of attention. LINK has a maximum supply of 1 billion pieces, and the circulation volume is about 748 million pieces (about three-quarters). One-quarter of them still have not entered the market, which may cause selling pressure in the future. The maximum supply of QNT is about 14.6 million pieces, and the circulation volume is about 14.55 million pieces, almost all of which are in circulation. Therefore, LINK still has potential supply pressure, and QNT's supply problems have been basically solved, and investors should consider this accordingly.

Two paths lead to the same destination, and the design determines the trust position in the system

For both, whether banking revenue is allocated through tokens remains an open issue.

This is the question that investors are most concerned about, and there is currently no clear answer. A network can be commercially successful without its tokens necessarily sharing the results. In Quant's case, this depends on the terms of the Overledger license, but its current pricing is not publicly disclosed and third-party accounts are contradictory, so it is not a statement of fact. On Chainlink's side, the same question exists about the cost of CCIP and the remuneration of the oracle network. Anyone considering investing in these two projects should treat them as outstanding issues rather than tacitly resolved. The most honest way to say it is: Bank authorization proves the effectiveness of the technology, but it is not enough to prove the value of the token.

Token purchase and tax instructions in the German market

QNT and LINK are both listed on mature trading platforms, of which LINK has far more trading venues than QNT. Purchases in Germany must comply with MiCAR regulations, and providers must be authorized to provide cryptographic asset services. A list of providers regulated in Europe can be found in our overview.

In terms of tax, German regulations on privately held crypto assets apply to both. According to Article 23 of the German Income Tax Code (EstG), sales proceeds are subject to tax if the interval between purchases and sales does not exceed one year. If the total proceeds from all private disposals during the calendar year are less than € 1,000, the tax is exempt. Investors buying in batches need to record acquisition data for each unit because the one-year holding period is calculated separately for each transaction.

Decisive evidence for the coming months

For both projects, there are measurable signs that distinguish "progress" from "announcements." For Quant, the key is the clearing house's timetable: As 2027 approaches, authorizations must be translated into actual operations, and transaction volumes and numbers of participating institutions must be more specific. For Chainlink, the key is whether the work with Swift and Infosys can translate into products that banks deploy without relying on pilots.

The same goes for tokens. Strong evidence will be the published rate schedule, which shows that some revenue is indeed settled through the corresponding network. As long as this is lacking, the link between commercial success and token prices is just an assumption.

Two networks can coexist

The question of "Quant or Chainlink" presupposes that the bank must choose one. This is not the case. The abstraction layer and the transmission standard are at different levels and are not technically mutually exclusive. Institutions can connect applications through an abstraction layer and transfer funds between standard settlement networks.

For investors, this means that there is no mechanism for deducting the proceeds of one token from another token. The prices of the two are not two sides of the same bet. Investors should evaluate based on the evidence of their respective projects, rather than looking at the performance of the other party.