Garden Finance on RAVN: HTLC Rails for Native BTC

Quick answer

Garden Finance is a native Bitcoin venue built into RAVN's router and held out of the race today. When it raced, a solver locked in a price and the swap settled as an HTLC atomic swap on Garden's rails. If Garden gave you the most, it won. RAVN never held your funds or ran Garden's contracts.

Where Garden sat in the race

While Garden was racing, it sat alongside these:

• GardenHTLC atomic swaps, real BTC in either direction, against the EVM and Solana assets Garden listed. Registered, not racing today.
• RelayA relayer network that covers more pairs, with different speed on the same routes.
• NEARNEAR Intents, for any-to-any deposit swaps when the pair is available.

Garden was never a copy of Relay. Garden gave firm prices on the pairs it served. Relay covered pairs Garden turned down.

HTLC swaps in plain words

Garden settled with hashed timelock contracts (HTLCs). For you, that meant three things:

• A solver committed to a price up front.
• Both sides locked under the same cryptographic condition. Either both completed, or neither did.
• You got the real asset at the end, not a receipt token from RAVN.

That is why Garden quotes were firm. You got the quoted number, or the swap failed instead of quietly filling worse.

Which pairs Garden covered

Garden only raced when real BTC was on exactly one side. BTC to BTC is not a swap. For pairs without Bitcoin, RAVN never asked Garden.

Garden covered Bitcoin, Solana and the EVM chains it mapped, such as Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, BNB, HyperEVM, Monad and Robinhood Chain. Each pair still depended on Garden's asset list, its size limits and solver liquidity at that moment.

Garden said no in two normal ways. Neither was an outage:

• Pair not served. Garden declined some routes, such as certain Base USDC to BTC swaps.
• Not enough liquidity right then, even on an allowed pair.

Either way, Garden sat that race out and the other venues carried on. That same rule keeps quotes working now that Garden is out entirely.

What you did when Garden won

What you signed depended on which side was Bitcoin:

• DEPDEPOSIT when Bitcoin was the source. You sent BTC to the address Garden gave for that order.
• TXTRANSACTION when you locked funds on another chain, as an EVM transaction or a Solana transaction into Garden's HTLC.
• SIGSIGNATURE on some EVM to BTC swaps. You signed a typed message (EIP-712, one your wallet can display) and a solver submitted the lock, so you paid no gas for it. ERC-20 approvals could still apply.

The quote told you which one. You never needed Garden's own API.

Why Garden and Relay both raced

The name never decided the winner. A firm Garden quote that left you with less still lost. A slower Relay quote could lose when amounts were close.

What RAVN added on top

• A real race. Garden had to beat every other BTC venue on what you received after gas and slippage.
• One flow. Same quote and execute steps as every other venue.
• No custody. Nothing sat with RAVN in the middle of a Garden swap.

Inside RAVN, Garden was one specialist competing for the win. It will be again if it returns.

Limits it had

• Garden set a minimum and maximum size per asset. Amounts outside that range got no Garden quote.
• Token decimals had to match Garden's asset list. If they did not, we skipped Garden so your amounts stayed right.
• App swaps are 0 bps from RAVN, permanently. Integrators set their own fee, from 0 to 100 bps.
• Timing depended on Bitcoin confirmations and the solver. That meant minutes, not seconds.