Update FAQ with mainnet and competitors

[fadeev]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Enhanced FAQ section with detailed comparisons to LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole solutions.
  • Updated mainnet status information and expanded multi-chain support details.
  • Clarified testnet token information for better user understanding.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Preview	Updated (UTC)
docs-v2	Ready	Preview	Nov 11, 2025 10:07am

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This PR updates the FAQ documentation file with enhanced product comparisons and clarified mainnet information. The "How does ZetaChain compare?" section is replaced with three detailed architectural comparisons for LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole. The mainnet FAQ subsection is expanded to specify supported chains and clarify testnet token value.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
FAQ Documentation Updates src/pages/about/info/faq.mdx	Replaced generic cross-solution comparison with three dedicated comparative sections (LayerZero, Axelar, Wormhole) covering architecture, security, Bitcoin support, developer experience, and gas handling. Updated mainnet status header and description to list supported chains. Refined testnet ZETA acquisition text and clarified testnet token monetary value.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

• Verify accuracy of architectural comparisons against LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole specifications
• Confirm mainnet chain support list is current and complete
• Ensure testnet/mainnet messaging aligns with broader product documentation
• Review tone consistency with existing FAQ sections and marketing materials

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'Update FAQ with mainnet and competitors' directly aligns with the primary changes: updating the FAQ section with mainnet information and adding detailed competitor comparisons.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch update-faq

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

src/pages/about/info/faq.mdx (1)

146-187: Detailed consensus model comparison with strong technical accuracy.

The Wormhole comparison effectively contrasts the Guardian-based permissioned model against ZetaChain's cryptoeconomic security, providing clear differentiation on finality, Bitcoin integration, and governance. The technical details are accurate and well-explained.

Minor suggestion at line 164–165: "adding an additional trust layer" is slightly verbose. Consider tightening to "adds a trust layer" or "adds another layer" since the Layer 2 context already implies additionalness.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Disabled knowledge base sources:

• Linear integration is disabled by default for public repositories

You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b2b6791 and e0c3474.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/pages/about/info/faq.mdx (2 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 LanguageTool

src/pages/about/info/faq.mdx

[style] ~165-~165: This phrase might be redundant. Consider either removing or replacing the adjective ‘additional’.
Context: ... first exist on Stacks before bridging, adding an additional trust layer. - Developer experience: With Zet...

(ADD_AN_ADDITIONAL)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: build

🔇 Additional comments (4)

src/pages/about/info/faq.mdx (4)

73-103: Well-structured competitive positioning with balanced technical accuracy.

The LayerZero comparison provides clear architectural distinctions and acknowledges both solutions' strengths while positioning ZetaChain's advantages (Bitcoin integration, single-contract deployment, gas abstraction). The technical claims are accurate, and the conclusion avoids hyperbole by noting LayerZero's suitability for specific use cases.

---

104-144: Thorough architectural comparison with comprehensive technical distinctions.

The Axelar comparison systematically covers six dimensions and effectively contrasts ZetaChain's unified execution model against Axelar's asynchronous messaging middleware. The technical characterizations are accurate. Consider verifying that Axelar's Bitcoin integration strategy (Stacks and Babylon partnerships) at line 124 reflects the current state, as partnership models and integrations may evolve.

---

228-235: Mainnet section successfully transitions from future-tense to operational status.

The reframed header and description clearly communicate that mainnet is live and operational, with concrete guidance on supported chains and development environments. The "and others" qualifier appropriately covers additional chains without requiring constant updates.

Consider verifying that the listed chains (Ethereum, Bitcoin, BNB Chain, Polygon, Base, Sui, TON) represent the complete primary set of supported networks on mainnet, to ensure the FAQ remains accurate as the network evolves.

---

241-243: Testnet ZETA value statement is clear and appropriately definitive.

The explicit statement that testnet ZETA has no monetary value and is solely for testing purposes effectively sets user expectations. The reinforcement via the dedicated Q&A at lines 247–248 is appropriate for FAQ documentation.