🔒 Lock & Mint: How Bridges Work

Understand the lock-and-mint mechanism used by most bridges

Transfer assets between different blockchains

Your Progress

0 / 5 completed

🔄 Bridging Mechanisms

Not all bridges work the same way. The classic lock-and-mint model is intuitive but requires trust in validators. Liquidity pools (AMM-based) offer speed but face slippage and capital efficiency issues. Atomic swaps are trustless via HTLCs but slow and complex. Optimistic bridges inherit L1 security with fraud proofs but impose 7-day withdrawal delays. Each mechanism has different trust assumptions, speed, security, and UX trade-offs. Understanding these patterns helps you choose the right bridge for your use case—speed for traders, security for large transfers, decentralization for censorship resistance.

🎮 Interactive: Mechanism Comparison

Select a bridging mechanism to see how it works, its trust model, speed, security properties, real examples, and the complete technical process.

🔒

Lock-and-Mint

Traditional bridging: lock on source, mint wrapped on destination

Trust Model

Validators/Multisig

Transfer Speed

10-30 minutes

Security Level

Medium-High

Real Examples

Polygon Bridge, Arbitrum Bridge, Wormhole

✓ Advantages

• Simple to understand
• 1:1 backing guarantee
• Works for any asset

✗ Disadvantages

• Requires trusted relayers
• Single point of failure
• Centralization risk

🔧 Technical Process

1User calls lock(amount) on source chain contract
2Event emitted: LockEvent(user, amount, destChain)
3Validators watch source chain, sign confirmation
4Relayer submits proof to destination chain
5Destination contract verifies signatures, mints wrapped tokens

🎯 When to Use Each Mechanism

Lock-and-Mint: General-purpose bridging for most assets. Good balance of speed and simplicity. Use when you trust validators (Polygon, Arbitrum, major L2s).

Liquidity Pools: Best for speed and UX. Ideal for frequent traders, low-value transfers. Accept slippage risk. Examples: Hop for L2 ↔ L2, Synapse for cross-chain swaps.

Atomic Swaps: Use when trustlessness is critical and speed doesn't matter. P2P OTC deals, censorship resistance. Limited adoption due to complexity.

Optimistic: Maximum security for L2 ↔ L1. Large transfers where 7-day delay acceptable. Inherits Ethereum security. Native to Optimism/Arbitrum ecosystems.

📊 Comparison Matrix

Mechanism	Trust	Speed	Cost	Complexity
Lock-and-Mint	Validators	Medium	Low-Medium	Low
Liquidity Pool	LPs + Protocol	Fast	Medium (slippage)	Medium
Atomic Swap	Trustless	Slow	Low	High
Optimistic	L1 Security	Very Slow	Low	Medium

💡 Pro Tips

•
Check TVL: Higher TVL = more liquidity + battle-tested = safer. But also bigger honeypot for hackers.
•
Test Small Amounts: Always bridge $10-100 first. Confirm receipt on destination before moving large sums.
•
Monitor Gas: L1 gas can make small bridges uneconomical. Wait for low gas or batch transfers.
•
Understand Delays: Optimistic bridges take 7 days for withdrawals. Plan liquidity needs accordingly.