Discovery asks, “Which route looks best?”
Pricing, slippage, and liquidity matter. But a route comparison still leaves users coordinating bridges, networks, gas assets, and execution decisions.
Liquidity is connected. The journey still isn't.
Map the five coordination steps named in the source post, compare them with one unified execution path, and see where time, decisions, and exposure accumulate.
Educational scenario model only. No wallet connection, transaction execution, route quote, price feed, or live Omniston, STON.fi, TON, bridge, or swap data is used.
Five small steps become one large barrier.
The source post names the work plainly: bridge funds, switch networks, manage gas tokens, compare routes, and accept execution risk. This tool preserves that exact job and lets you test the post's thesis with assumptions you control.
Make coordination costs inspectable.
Set the time and success rate for each manual step. The model compounds those rates, then compares the path with one coordinated execution assumption.
Aggregation finds a route. Coordination carries the journey.
The source post's distinction becomes clearer when the work is separated into discovery, execution, and outcome.
Execution asks, “Who handles every dependency?”
A coordinated layer is valuable when it reduces the number of manual handoffs between intent and settlement. This model makes those handoffs measurable.
Outcome asks, “Was it fast, reliable, competitive, and low-friction?”
Those are the four user priorities named in the post. Use the exported scenario to debate the assumptions instead of hiding them behind a promise.
Take the assumptions with you.
The export includes every input, the compounded-probability formula, computed results, and a plain disclaimer that the scenario is not live execution data.