Reactor

We’re looking to talk with teams that have one painful Web2↔Web3 workflow. Examples: - A backend needs to trigger an onchain action. - A smart contract needs to notify a Web2 system. - A team wants cross-chain execution without running custom relayers. - An app needs policy checks before execution. Reactor is built for one workflow at a time. If this sounds familiar, we’d like to hear from you.

One blockchain feature should not turn the rest of your application into blockchain infrastructure. Good connectivity contains the complexity at the boundary. The application owns the workflow. The infrastructure handles the chain-specific work.

Customers usually want the capability, not the infrastructure behind it. They want: purchase → onchain reward payment → settlement contract event → app action Not another stack of relayers, retries, chain services, monitoring, and callbacks to operate. That is the problem workflow connectivity is meant to simplify.

Existing software should be able to use blockchain. Blockchain applications should be able to call existing software. App → chain Chain → app Chain → chain One workflow model across the boundaries. That is workflow connectivity.

Seeing a blockchain event is not always the same as being ready to act on it. A workflow may need: event observed → required finality → execution The right amount of certainty depends on the action being taken. Workflow connectivity should preserve that choice.

A trigger is not an authorization. Event → policy decision → execution That separation matters when workflows can move value, call contracts, or interact with external systems. Connectivity should make actions easier to coordinate without making them automatic by default.

Blockchain does not need to replace the application. Use the application for what it does well. Use the blockchain for what it does well. Connect the two at the workflow boundary. That is where workflow connectivity becomes useful.

A blockchain transaction being submitted is not the same thing as a workflow being complete. There is still: finality → execution → retry handling → callback → application state Workflow connectivity is about coordinating the whole path, not just delivering a transaction.

A smart contract may be one part of a workflow. The harder problem is often everything around it: App trigger → verification → execution → finality → retry → callback → result. Reactor is built around coordinating that complete application-to-blockchain workflow.

The unit of blockchain adoption does not have to be the application. It can be the workflow. App event → blockchain action → result returned. Keep the application. Add the capability. That is the model Reactor is built around.

Blockchain integration should not start with a platform rewrite. Start with one workflow: Existing application event → onchain action → result returned to the application. Prove the value. Expand from there. That is workflow connectivity.

Infrastructure often gets evaluated by feature lists. Production teams usually evaluate it differently. Can we understand it? Can we operate it? Can we trust it? Features matter. Operational confidence matters more over time.

Why deterministic execution matters Users usually don’t remember successful executions. They remember inconsistent ones. Reliable infrastructure should produce predictable outcomes even when retries, delays, or transient failures happen. Consistency builds trust long before performance benchmarks do.

Architecture Notes: Good abstractions reduce complexity, not visibility. One of the easiest ways to increase operational complexity is to hide important system behavior behind abstractions. Good infrastructure should reduce operational complexity while making the important decisions easier to understand. Abstraction should reduce complexity. It should never reduce visibility.

A useful workflow audit trail should answer more than: “Did the transaction succeed?” It should also show: • what initiated the workflow • what was verified • which policies were applied • which inputs informed the decision • where execution occurred • what result came back Transaction history is not the same as workflow visibility.

Architecture Notes Hidden trust often enters through decision points, not data movement. A production workflow should define: • who proves source intent • who can approve or block execution • which network provides finality • who can retry or pause • where the outcome is recorded Trust boundaries should be designed, not assumed.

One interface does not have to mean one lowest-common-denominator workflow. Reactor is built to give teams: • one integration surface • chain-aware execution • policy-aware workflows • visibility into operational assumptions Simplicity should not come at the cost of control or clarity.

Customers buy capabilities. The underlying networks determine many of the guarantees behind them. Good infrastructure should: • make capabilities easier to use • preserve visibility into security, finality, cost, and failure assumptions Abstraction should reduce integration work, not erase operational truth.

A good blockchain abstraction should make integration simpler without making guarantees vague. Teams should get a cleaner path to onchain capabilities while still understanding the security, finality, cost, native features, and failure assumptions of each underlying network.

When teams evaluate blockchain infrastructure, they often compare protocols. Another way to evaluate it is this: How much new infrastructure does your team need to own after integrating? The answer usually predicts long-term operational cost better than the feature list.