What Is a Crypto Bridge & How to Use It Safely

When you work not just with a single network but with several ecosystems at once – Ethereum, L2, Solana, BNB Chain, and others – the question of moving liquidity arises almost immediately. Stablecoins, liquidity for pools, collateral for loans, farming on new platforms – all of this requires moving assets from one chain to another without off-ramping into the banking system and without extra fees from centralized services. This is where blockchain bridges come into play, taking their role as a transfer zone between networks and becoming a critical piece of infrastructure for DeFi and multichain strategies.

However, a bridge simultaneously holds a high concentration of capital and a complex bundle of smart contracts, oracles, multisig keys, and external services. Any bug in the code, excessive trust in operators, or miscalculation in the architecture immediately turns it into a point of concentrated risk. History already shows examples of attacks where a single bridge vulnerability wiped out the returns of entire strategies, regardless of how carefully you chose pools and protocols on the target network.

That is why you shouldn't treat blockchain bridges as a secondary element, but as a critical infrastructure element that directly affects your yield strategies and risk management. Therefore, it is crucial to understand what types of bridges exist, which mechanisms they use to maintain balance between networks, which exact assumptions they build into their security model, and which alternatives exist when a bridge looks too complex or opaque. This will allow you not only to move assets between networks more efficiently and safely, but also to consciously decide where a bridge is truly justified and where it makes more sense to use other routes.

Get our comprehensive breakdown about DeFi Fundamentals: A Beginner's Guide to Decentralised Finance (2025)

What Is a Blockchain Bridge?

A blockchain bridge connects two or more on-chain networks, enabling the movement of assets between them without going off-chain. From a technical perspective, this always means a set of smart contracts in each of the chains plus an operational layer that tracks events, reconciles states, and triggers the minting or unlocking of tokens. The user initiates an operation in the source network, the smart contract records it, and sends a signal to the target network through a predefined mechanism. The protocol then reflects this action: it either mints a representation of the token, or releases liquidity from reserves, or changes records in a shared state.

And from the very beginning, you need to consider that such a linkage always rests on several assumptions in the trust model. Smart contracts take on part of the guarantees: they strictly fix what is locked or accounted for and under which rules the reverse operation is allowed. Operators, validators, or L2 networks are responsible for correctly transmitting signals between chains and for ensuring that the transactions at the entry and exit genuinely match each other. Any change to the configuration, the list of supported networks, limits, or roles directly affects how safe and predictable the bridge remains, but this critically important aspect will be examined later. First, let us look at which types of bridges exist today.

Lock-and-Mint Bridges

In a lock-and-mint model, the smart contract in the source network accepts the user's tokens and moves them into a locked state. After the deposit is confirmed, the protocol mints a wrapped token in the target network in an equivalent amount. The balance between networks is maintained through a strict linkage: the number of locked tokens in the source chain corresponds to the total supply of wrapped assets in the target chain. The reverse operation is built symmetrically: the user burns the wrapped token, the protocol unlocks the base asset, and sends it to the address in the source network. In this scheme, the critical role is played by the contracts that hold the collateral and by the logic that prevents minting more wrapped tokens than are actually locked.

Liquidity and Routing Bridges

In liquidity bridges, the protocol relies not on the collateral of specific tokens but on liquidity pools belonging to operators and participants. When a user moves an asset from one network to another, the protocol debits the token in the source chain and simultaneously releases the equivalent from a pool in the target chain. The obligation to the pool is recorded inside the bridge itself: the protocol must either attract an offsetting flow of users or rebalance reserves through its own operations. Here, the risk shifts from simple collateral storage to the management of these pools, routing algorithms, and the rules under which operators add or withdraw liquidity. If the logic of calculations or limits is implemented with an error, the imbalance between networks hits the pool participants.

Bridges for L2 and Rollup Solutions

There are canonical bridges for rollups and L2 chains that connect derivative networks to the base L1. In such an architecture, the L2 publishes data on states and proofs (fraud-proof or validity-proof) to the main network, and the bridge uses this information to correctly mint and return assets. The user deposits tokens into a contract on L1 and then receives the asset in the L2 network; when withdrawing, the reverse process runs about finality and challenge windows. The security of such a bridge rests on the security model of the L2 itself: who is responsible for data publication, how sequencers work, how correctness proofs are implemented, and which delays are built into the protocol to protect against fraudulent operations.

Message-Bridges

There are also message-bridges that transfer not only value but also arbitrary messages between chains. Applications use this layer to synchronize states: to update parameters in smart contracts across different networks, to transfer position data, or to execute linked operations in several chains at once. A set of validators or oracles observes events in one network, forms a confirmation, and delivers the message to another network, where the target contract executes the linked logic. In this model, a single bridge can serve many protocols at once, so compromising the message layer affects the entire group of applications that rely on it.

Get our comprehensive breakdown about Crypto API: ​​How the Crypto Space Works Under the Hood.

Why Bridges Get Hacked

Hackers often attack blockchain bridges as several independent layers of risk converge at one point: smart contract logic, external messages from other networks, operator keys, and the infrastructure between them. Each of these layers is complex in itself, and in a bridge, they are combined on top of a large TVL, which always looks like an attractive target. Let's look at the main risks created by the complexity of this system.

• Concentration of Liquidity. A large volume of assets is locked on one side of the bridge or in a custodial vault, and users receive wrapped tokens in other networks in return. If an attacker finds a way to mint extra wrapped assets or withdraw part of the locked funds, the imbalance immediately spreads across the entire ecosystem: tokens on the target network continue to circulate while the pool that should be backing them becomes partially or entirely empty.
• Complexity of Verification Logic. A bridge must ensure that the event in the source network actually happened, belongs to the correct contract, and isn't forged or replayed. To achieve this, bridges usually use validator signatures, Merkle proofs, light client mechanisms, and other schemes. However, any error in proof verification, incorrect handling of nonce or chainId, or faulty processing of message statuses causes the contract on the receiving side to treat an invalid event as legitimate and mint assets where no deposit actually took place.
• Trust Model for Reys and Validators. Many bridges rely on a multisig, a validator committee, or a small group of operators who sign messages about transfers. If an attacker gains control over a sufficient number of keys, convinces validators to sign an incorrect message, or exploits a flaw in the role and threshold system, they effectively replace the source of truth for the contract. In such a scenario, the exploit outwardly looks like a regular operation even though it does not reflect a correct state change in the source chain. Mistakes in economic design could extend the problem: excessive limits on wrapped-asset issuance, weak incentives for honest validator participation, or the absence of strict caps on the size of individual transfers all turn even formally correct code into a practical vulnerability.
• Infrastructure Vectors. Relayers transmitting messages between networks, backends that work with RPC, indexers, domains, and frontends all become additional attack points. Through an infrastructure vulnerability, an attacker can tamper with data, redirect traffic to a phishing clone of the bridge, or trick users into signing transactions that go to the wrong contract or the wrong network. In formal terms, the smart contracts may remain correct, but the attack still leads to loss of funds because the information delivery and display path is compromised.

Therefore, blockchain bridges will remain one of the elements of multichain infrastructure with the highest potential risk: they combine a complex inter-network protocol, concentrate significant TVL, and require deeper auditing, formal verification, and operational discipline than most isolated DeFi protocols. As soon as the architectural, cryptographic, or organizational layer isn't worked through thoroughly enough, a window opens for an attack with consequences that go beyond a single contract and affect entire ecosystems around the bridge.

Get our comprehensive breakdown about Zero-Knowledge Proofs in Web3: What Is ZK-SNARK

How to Verify Bridge Security

• Trust Models. First of all, it is worth explicitly fixing who exactly receives control over assets for the duration of the operation: the product team, a limited set of validators, a single company, an L1/L2 ecosystem, or a dedicated set of operators. It is important how the bridge technically confirms events in the source network: via an on-chain light client with header verification, its own validator set with quorum rules, or an oracle scheme with several data providers. At this stage, you should also pay attention to the economic security profile: how the bridge incentivizes validators and operators to follow the rules, whether they have collateral and slashing mechanisms, and how transparent the reward and penalty system is for improper behavior.
• Architecture in Documentation and On-Chain. You should check whether there are separate light client contracts on target networks, whether information about the composition and roles of validators is public, and whether there is a diagram of message and token flows with all intermediate modules indicated. If the bridge relies on a centralized backend or API, it is useful to understand how easy it is to detect the failure of these components and how the system behaves when certain parts of the infrastructure are temporarily unavailable.
• Admin Rights and Upgrades. You need a clear answer to the questions of who can pause the bridge, change limits, update contracts, and reconfigure validators. A really transparent model requires at least timelock contracts, where changes pass through a delay, pre-announced upgrade procedures, and a public incident response plan. Also, it is important that powers aren't concentrated in a single private key without multisig and clear constraints, and that ownership contracts, multisig addresses, and the timelock are visible on-chain and match what is stated in the documentation.
• Expert Audits and Verification. Several independent audits of critical modules by specialized firms, clear reports describing discovered vulnerabilities and their status, and an active bug bounty program with a clearly defined scope can also serve as signals of maturity. For bridges that take on large TVL, formal verification of key invariants can be an additional plus: correctness of message verification, preservation of balance between networks, and impossibility of arbitrary wrapped-asset issuance. At the same time, it isn't so much the presence of an audit certificate, however documented, that matters as the consistency of code, deployments, and documentation with what is described in these reports.
• Actual On-Chain Behavior of the Bridge. The bridge's operating history in practice is one of the central indicators of its resilience. How long the bridge has been running in production without critical incidents, what volumes of liquidity regularly pass through it, and how TVL is distributed across contracts and networks are all important. It is useful to assess how the team behaved in past difficult situations: whether losses were compensated, how thoroughly root causes were analyzed, how quickly fixes were shipped, and what changes were made to the architecture. The presence of limits on the size of individual transfers, daily caps, anti-whale mechanics, and other on-chain constraints also shows how seriously the protocol treats risk management and how willing it is to sacrifice convenience for capital safety.

Get our comprehensive breakdown about Multisig Wallet: What Is Multisig and When It's Worth It?

Trusted Bridges & Alternatives

In a multichain ecosystem, more reliable bridges differ by what their security rests on and which assumptions have to be added on top of the base consensus. Some designs almost fully inherit the L1 security model, others are built around a separate set of validators and admin keys, and still others minimize on-chain logic and shift risk onto a centralized operator. As a result, there is no universal solution here but rather the most acceptable trust profile for a specific task and amount.

Relatively More Resilient Classes of Bridges

At the top of the hierarchy are native L1/L2 bridges embedded in the ecosystem's design. In such schemes, assets are effectively locked in a contract on the base L1, and the minting and redemption of represented tokens on L2 are tightly bound to events in the main chain. Verification usually goes through a light client or another block header verification mechanism, and key contracts are controlled by the same governance and the same set of validators as the network itself. Additional assumptions are minimal: security is defined by the base consensus and the correctness of the protocol implementation that connects the layers.

Sitting slightly lower are canonical bridges that are tied to a specific rollup or L2 but exist as separate modules. They also rely on L1 security but add another layer of assumptions: correctness of validity or fraud proofs, sequencer behavior, and stable operation of the exit mechanism from L2 to L1. In such schemes, the bridge contracts on the base chain are no longer governed by the entire L1 validator set but by the specific L2 stack, its governance, and its operators, so a separate risk model and upgrade procedures become attached to it.

For the message-layer, trust is distributed between the set of validators or oracles that sign events and the protocol architecture that aggregates and verifies signatures. The assets themselves can be held in custodial contracts or by operators, while the bridge appears to the user as an endpoint on top of a shared message layer. Protocols that need a unified standard for cross-chain integration usually aim for such solutions, but when assessing them, you should separately break down how exactly the validator set is formed and updated, and which constraints their powers are subject to.

Alternatives to Bridges and How They Change Trust

A bridge isn't necessary in every scenario. Sometimes, it is more reliable to change the technical route and deliberately shift trust to another entity. A classic example is withdrawing assets to a CEX in one network and depositing them in another. In this case, the on-chain bridge risk disappears, but counterparty risk from the exchange emerges instead: safekeeping of funds, correctness of internal accounting, and behavior under stress conditions. This route makes sense when the exchange seems more predictable than a particular bridge and when the operations stay within limits that are comfortable within the chosen jurisdiction and compliance.

Another option is using stablecoins with native issuance on several networks. Instead of moving the same asset through a bridge, the user sells the token in the source chain, buys stables, and then in the target network swaps them back into the needed asset. In this case, trust is shifted to the stablecoin issuer and its reserve model: the risk of depeg and loss of parity replaces the risk of a bridge bug or hack. This route is suitable when trust in the issuer is higher than trust in the architecture of a particular cross-chain solution and when the required volumes and fees aren't critical.

Finally, if the ecosystem supports a direct fiat on-ramp into the desired network, some scenarios are easier to close directly on the target chain. In this case, capital moves between networks not technically but financially: new capital is brought into one network, and old capital in another is gradually reduced. The risk here is tied to the payment provider and banking infrastructure rather than to bridges, and this strategy fits when the goal is to increase presence in a new ecosystem without instantly moving large amounts out of already running strategies.

Learn our comprehensive reviews about the top legit exchanges, their features, benefits, and special offers!

Best Safety Practices

If your tasks inevitably lead you to blockchain bridges, let's review several safety practices that will help you approach them more consciously and reduce risk.

How to Safely Start Using Bridges

Work with a bridge starts with checking the entry point. Before the first transaction, you should only use links from official documentation or the protocol's website, verify the domain and the bridge contract address in an explorer, and perform a single small test transaction to see exactly how the route works and where the deposit shows up. Ideally, you use a separate working wallet that connects to bridges and experimental protocols, while large amounts and long-term positions stay on cold or rarely used addresses. It also makes sense to set an internal limit on the total amount allowed in wrapped assets and on the balances of addresses participating in cross-chain transfers, and to save the hashes of key transactions so you can quickly trace the sequence of actions if needed.

How to Work With Wrapped Tokens

A wrapped token always adds another layer of trust on top of the native asset; therefore, it is essential to track which bridge and which contract minted it. You should separately account for the share of wrappers in the portfolio, understand which specific risks stand behind this construction compared to the native coin, and periodically move part of the position back into the original form so you don't accumulate an uncontrollable volume through a single route. It is useful to look not only at the mere fact that a wrapped version exists but also at the liquidity and protocol support it has compared to the base asset: sometimes the wrapper trades on fewer venues and makes exiting positions harder during market stress. Over the long term, it is more reasonable to leave in wrapped form only the volume that is actually needed for specific strategies and to keep a plan for how to quickly unwind such positions back into the native token.

Controlling Wallet Permissions

The safety of working with bridges heavily depends on which permissions the wallet grants to their contracts and related protocols. Regular cleanup of approve and permit reduces potential damage from a hack or incorrect logic upgrade: after finishing with a bridge and its auxiliary contracts, it is useful to go through the permission list and revoke what is no longer needed. It is important to distinguish one-time transfers, where the wallet sends a specific token amount, from a global unlimited allowance that lets a contract manage the entire asset balance. Schemes like permit and other off-chain signatures deserve special attention, as they don't always appear as standard on-chain approve, yet still open access to funds. The fewer long-lived global permissions bridges and related contracts you retain, the narrower the attack surface.

Action Plan in Case of Bridge Issues

A working model for using bridges assumes a pre-thought exit scenario. It makes sense to estimate in advance how quickly and through which routes you can return liquidity to the native network, what fees and delays this will entail, and which volumes you can move without major slippage. The portfolio should be structured so that no single bridge becomes a single point of failure: distribute volumes across several solutions, use alternative routes through CEX or multichain stablecoins, and avoid a situation where a critical share of capital depends on a single contract. It is useful to periodically monitor the status of bridges you use, pay attention to deposit pauses, abnormal delays, and unusual team announcements, and at the first signs of problems, gradually reduce positions in wrapped assets. This approach doesn't remove risk entirely but turns it from an uncontrollable factor into a managed element of the overall multichain strategy.

Get our comprehensive breakdown about the DYOR Сrypto Сhecklist: Evaluate Crypto Projects Before Investing

Conclusion

Overall, the decision to use a bridge always comes down to two major parts: architecture and operational routine. Architecture determines which assumptions the route between networks rests on and who exactly controls the collateral, the issuance of wrapped assets, and message processing. Operational routine sets which amounts are allowed into this setup at all, how wallets and environments are separated, how often permissions are reviewed, and which alternative routes are prepared in advance in case of failure. When both layers are broken down and described, moving capital between networks becomes a controlled engineering decision with a clear risk profile.

With this approach, bridges occupy a clearly defined place in the overall structure of multichain strategies. For some tasks, it is reasonable to rely on more predictable classes of bridges and to strictly limit the share of wrapped assets; for others, it is better to use routes through CEX, stablecoins, or a direct on-ramp into the desired network. What remains important isn't the mere fact of using bridges but how carefully they are integrated into the portfolio and processes: how quickly you can return liquidity to native form, how risk is distributed across different routes, and which loss boundaries are acceptable to you even before the first transaction. 

Get more insights from our guides for beginners and professionals, and stay tuned for the latest updates and opportunities in the new economy, crypto industry, and blockchain developments!