Cross-Chain Bridges: How Assets Travel Between Blockchains (Without Getting Robbed)

Source: Dev.to

🎄 Merry Christmas everyone!

Day 20 of the 60‑day “Web3” series

What are cross‑chain bridges?

Cross‑chain bridges are the invisible highways that let assets and data move between otherwise isolated blockchains.
Think of each blockchain as a city with its own language (protocol, consensus rules, state).

• Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Solana, Avalanche, Cosmos zones… each speak a different protocol.
• Most chains cannot talk to each other natively, so assets and information stay where they were created.

Users don’t usually decide “I want to use Ethereum mainnet today.”
Instead they think about the experience they want:

• “I want cheaper gas.” → L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base…)
• “I want a specific DeFi yield or NFT ecosystem.”
• “I want to move stablecoins where fees are lower.”

Bridges exist to:

1. Use ETH‑like value on another chain without selling it on a centralized exchange.
2. Enable protocols to build experiences that span multiple chains (e.g., liquidity on one chain, dApp front‑end on another).

In short, interoperability = connecting liquidity, apps, and users across a fragmented multichain world.

The lock‑&‑mint (or burn‑&‑mint) mental model

Most bridges follow a lock‑and‑mint or burn‑and‑mint flow.

Example: Bridging 1 ETH from Ethereum → Polygon

Returning to Ethereum

1. Send the 1 wrapped ETH back to the bridge on Polygon.
2. The wrapped token is burned on Polygon.
3. The original 1 ETH is unlocked from the Ethereum contract and sent back to you.

Key points

• Original tokens rarely leave the source chain; they sit in a contract or custodian‑controlled wallet.

• What moves is a representation (wrapped/pegged token).

• Analogy:

  You give your coat to the coat‑check (lock).
  They give you a ticket (wrapped token).
  You use the ticket inside the venue.
  When you’re done, you return the ticket and get your coat back.

Trust models behind bridges

Bridges differ mainly in who you trust and how messages are verified.

1️⃣ Centralized / Operator‑controlled bridges

• Run by a company or a small multisig (e.g., 5/9 signers).

• Users trust the operator to:

  • Safely hold locked assets.
  • Correctly mint/burn wrapped tokens.

• Examples: Binance Bridge, some wrapped‑BTC models, certain centralized cross‑chain services.

2️⃣ Decentralized / Trust‑less bridges

• Use smart contracts, light clients, or cryptographic proofs to verify events on one chain from another.

• Trust the underlying protocols and validator sets instead of a single operator.

• Examples: Connext, Hop, PoP / light‑client‑based bridges.

3️⃣ Message‑oriented bridges

• Focus on messages, not just token transfers.

  “This address locked X tokens on chain A.”
  “Execute this action on chain B if condition is met on chain A.”

• Token bridging becomes one use case on top of a broader messaging layer.

Takeaway for learners: Every bridge has a trust model. You’re always trusting someone or something—the question is who and under what conditions.

Notable bridge hacks (2022‑2023)

• TRM Labs (late 2022) reported 13 bridge hacks accounting for ≈ $2 B in losses – rare but massive.
• Some analyses estimate bridge‑related incidents contributed to ~70 % of all stolen funds in certain periods of Web3 hacking history.

Why bridges are juicy targets

1. Massive pooled liquidity on the source chain (all locked tokens in one place).
2. A single bug or key leak can give attackers access to the entire pool.

From a user’s perspective, bridging is not just sending tokens – it adds several layers of risk:

• Smart‑contract risk – bugs in the bridge contract where funds are locked.
• Key/validator risk – compromised multisig or validator set can drain or mint at will.
• Economic risk – wrapped assets may de‑peg if trust in the bridge collapses.

Questions to ask before using a bridge

1. Who controls the locked funds?
   • A company? A multisig? A protocol DAO?
2. Has the bridge been audited?
   • By whom? When? How extensive?
3. What happens if the bridge goes offline?
   • Can you still exit? Is there a fallback mechanism?

Rule of thumb for newcomers: Bridging is like using a third‑party custodian – treat it with the same caution as leaving funds on an exchange.

Implications for builders

If you are building anything that:

• Runs on multiple chains.
• Needs liquidity from Ethereum on an L2 or another L1.
• Wants users to “bridge in” or “bridge out” as part of the UX.

…you are making design decisions about bridges, even if you think you’re just dropping a widget into your UI.

Why bridges matter for your product

TL;DR

• Cross‑chain bridges connect isolated blockchains, enabling cheaper gas, new DeFi yields, and lower‑fee stablecoin moves.
• Most use a lock‑and‑mint / burn‑and‑mint model: the original token stays locked, a wrapped representation moves.
• Trust models range from centralized operators to fully trust‑less, message‑oriented designs.
• Bridge hacks have caused billions in losses; the risk stems from massive pooled liquidity and single points of failure.
• Before bridging, ask who controls the funds, whether the bridge is audited, and what the exit strategy is.
• For developers, bridge choices affect security, UX, and composability—treat them as core architectural decisions.

Understanding Cross‑Chain Bridges

What a developer should do

• Know the trust model of any bridge you integrate.
• Communicate the assumptions clearly to users (e.g., “Funds are custodied by X; here’s the risk profile”).
• Consider safer alternatives when they exist (official native bridges vs. unknown third‑party bridges).

The beginner’s mental model

A bridge is mostly an IOU system.

• Your original asset stays locked on Chain A.
• You receive an IOU (wrapped token) on Chain B.
• If the system managing that IOU breaks, your claim may not be honored.

Why this matters

• More TVL in the bridge → bigger honeypot → higher incentive for hackers.
• Using a bridge is always a trade‑off between convenience and additional risk beyond the base chain.

How bridges fit into the learning roadmap

Together they illustrate that Web3 is not just chains – it’s the connective tissue (oracles, bridges, messaging layers) that makes those chains usable.

Analogy

• Blockchains = isolated cities with their own rules.
• Cross‑chain bridges = highways that let assets and messages move between cities.

Most bridges don’t move your coins; they lock them on one chain and mint wrapped versions on another, introducing new trust and security assumptions. Understanding how bridges work—and how they can fail—is essential if you don’t want your “bridged” tokens to disappear in the next headline hack.

Looking further out: Layer 0 & Layer 3

• Layer 0 – Networks like Cosmos and Polkadot that bake interoperability into the base layer.
• Layer 3 – App‑specific chains and rollups that sit even higher in the stack.

If bridges are the highways we bolt on, Layer 0 and Layer 3 are about designing the roads into the city from the start.

Still confused after Day 20?

Follow Medium and Twitter: Web3 for Humans for more updates.