🌉 Cross-Chain Bridges: Move Assets Anywhere

Learn how bridges enable interoperability between blockchains

Your Progress

0 / 5 completed

Introduction

🌉 The Multi-Chain Challenge

Blockchains don't talk to each other. Ethereum can't see Polygon transactions. Bitcoin can't access Solana state. Each chain is an isolated universe—different consensus, different VMs, zero native communication. But users want interoperability: move assets between chains, access liquidity anywhere, use best-of-breed chains for different tasks. Cross-chain bridges solve this by creating synthetic connections—lock assets on Chain A, mint representations on Chain B, maintain 1:1 peg. Billions in TVL flow through bridges daily, but they're also the riskiest DeFi infrastructure (Ronin $625M, Poly Network $611M, Wormhole $325M hacks). Understanding bridges is critical for multi-chain development.

🎮 Interactive: 5-Step Bridge Flow

Walk through how assets move between chains. Click through each step to see the complete lock-and-mint process from user action to destination chain receipt.

👤

Step 1 of 5

User Initiates Transfer

Alice wants to move 10 ETH from Ethereum to Polygon

💡 Technical Detail

User connects wallet to bridge UI, selects source chain (Ethereum), destination chain (Polygon), and amount (10 ETH).

1 / 5

🔑 Key Concepts

Lock-and-Mint: Assets locked on source chain, wrapped tokens minted on destination. Reverse: burn wrapped, unlock original. 1:1 peg maintained.

Wrapped Tokens: Synthetic representations (WETH, WBTC, anyToken). Backed 1:1 by locked assets. Can be redeemed anytime if bridge solvent.

Relayers/Validators: Off-chain actors watching both chains, relaying messages, verifying state. Security depends on their honesty and decentralization.

Trust Assumptions: Bridges require trust in validators, smart contracts, or both. Not trustless like same-chain transactions. Weakest link risk.

⚠️ Why Bridges Are Risky

•

Honeypots: Bridges hold billions in locked assets. One contract vulnerability = total loss. Ronin ($625M), Poly Network ($611M) prove this.

•

Validator Compromise: If relayers collude or are hacked, they can mint unlimited wrapped tokens (Wormhole $325M).

•

Complexity: Multi-chain logic, message passing, state verification across different VMs. More code = more bugs.

•

Centralization: Many bridges use 3-of-5 or 5-of-9 multisigs. Fewer parties to compromise than L1 consensus.

🌐 Popular Bridges

Multichain (anySwap): Generic bridge for 50+ chains. $7B+ TVL before exploit (2023).

Polygon PoS Bridge: Official Ethereum ↔ Polygon. Uses Plasma-like checkpoints + validators.

Wormhole: General message passing. Solana ↔ EVM chains. $325M hack recovered via VC bailout.

Hop Protocol: AMM-based bridge. Liquidity pools instead of lock-and-mint. Lower latency.