This page explores interchain approaches that could serve as alternatives to OASIS for delivering the Intergalactic Timebank. The comparison is framed around our core requirement: a chain-as-notary model that supports mutual credit, batch clearing, and governance anchoring without imposing per-transaction gas fees on everyday users. The focus is on civic infrastructure rather than financial throughput. Cosmos and the IBC ecosystem are a common alternative when communities want sovereign ledgers that can interoperate. Cosmos allows each chain to define its own fee policy, validator set, and governance. This flexibility is attractive for community-run timebanks, but in practice most Cosmos chains still rely on gas fees as an anti-spam mechanism. Sponsored fees and fee grants exist, but they must be explicitly designed and governed, otherwise users will still need to hold a native token to participate. Polkadot and its XCM messaging system offer a more tightly coordinated interchain environment. Cross-chain messages have explicit execution and delivery costs, which makes accounting transparent but not gas-free. Polkadot works well when interchain messages are relatively infrequent and high-value, such as anchoring cleared batches or governance decisions. It is less suitable if the underlying culture expects users to interact directly with on-chain mechanics, as this reintroduces friction and complexity. Ethereum Layer-2 systems are another major alternative. Rollups and app-specific L2s provide mature tooling, account abstraction, and meta-transaction patterns that can hide gas from users. In this model, sponsors or paymasters cover the cost of anchoring and verification. This fits well with the Static Ledger Clearing pattern, but introduces governance risk around who controls sponsorship and how long it remains available. Fee volatility and changing L2 economics are long-term concerns. Directed acyclic graph systems and ledgerless designs, such as hashgraph-inspired or gossip-based networks, offer low-cost consensus and high throughput. These systems can be attractive for time-stamping and ordering events, but often rely on permissioned governance or proprietary components. Their suitability depends on whether they allow open exit, independent verification, and integration with external identity systems such as DIDs. The most important comparison criterion is not raw performance but alignment with non-market values. Any alternative to OASIS must support restricted-transfer assets, off-chain signatures, batch anchoring, and explicit governance over cost and policy. Systems that assume liquidity, speculation, or constant on-chain interaction will push the Timebank toward financialisation. In summary, Cosmos-style sovereignty, Polkadot-style coordination, Ethereum L2-style abstraction, and DAG-style ordering all offer partial solutions. None are perfect substitutes. The right choice depends on which risks you are willing to govern directly: fee volatility, sponsorship power, validator capture, or architectural lock-in. The Intergalactic Timebank must be able to walk away if the substrate stops serving the constitution.