We are a team currently using a multi-signature wallet to manage assets in dHedge. We're looking to transfer vault ownership to the multi-signature wallet, but we're encountering issues. The problem arises because dHedge only allows linking one wallet to an official Twitter account. This restriction would result in our Total Value Locked (TVL) being fragmented across different accounts if we use a separate safe address for each chain. We are particularly interested in using networks like Polygon, Arbitrum, Base, and Optimism. Our current multi-sig was deployed this month on Optimism.

We understand that it is technically possible, though very challenging, to use the same vault address across each chain. However, customer support informed us that this setup is only advisable for recovering funds sent to the wrong chain and is not supported for regular use within the user interface.

Our question is: Why isn't it possible to deploy the same safe across multiple chains during the initial setup, and have the user sign a transaction on each chain using the same nonce for verification? Additionally, if we configure this using the safe-cli, why would this cause issues in the UI? Is there a way to resolve these issues? If not, we may need to explore other multi-signature solutions.

Given the rising popularity of Layer 2 solutions, we believe that multi-chain compatibility should be a priority. Since Ethereum addresses are inherently the same across all chains, we feel that Safe wallets should function similarly.

Thank you for addressing our concerns.

1 Answer 1


Thank you for your question. Multichain safes using the same addresses are a heavily requested feature, and also a source of confusion for some users. We understand that the current situation is not ideal in a user experience perspective, as it may induce errors to handle multiple addresses for different networks. Without diving too much into the details, most Layer 1 networks will support deploying the same safe across multiple chains, as they will be using the same smart contracts (ProxyFactory) to deploy Safes.

For Layer 2 networks however, the Safe Transaction Service needs different types of data, gathered through different contracts events than the ones emitted on Layer 1. This means that addresses derived from these contracts for a given Safe configuration will be different from L1 to L2, and there is currently no workaround for this. This problem also arises about non-EVM chains.

The solutions you mentioned work for specific situations and are not advised to be used under normal circumstances, as some transactions can be incorrectly indexed, and errors (e.g. lost of funds) can arise if the UI does not communicate with the servers properly.

A full team at safe is currently working on this exact problem, and we will be communicating on possible solutions as soon as we can. In the meantime, you can still use safe on multiple networks, bearing in mind that different addresses might be needed for some of them.

You can read more about this topic here: https://safe.mirror.xyz/4GcGAOFno-suTCjBewiYH4k4yXPDdIukC5woO5Bjc4w

Hope this helps clarify the question. Best, Louis

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.