Burn-and-Mint excels at creating a self-contained, deflationary economic zone by requiring users to permanently destroy a base asset (e.g., ETH) to mint a new synthetic asset. This model, pioneered by protocols like THORChain's RUNE for cross-chain liquidity, creates a direct, verifiable cost-of-entry and a hard-capped supply for the new asset. The permanent removal of collateral from circulation creates strong, provable scarcity, which can be critical for establishing a new asset's value floor and monetary policy independent of its underlying chain.
LABS
Comparisons
Burn-and-Mint Model vs Lock-and-Mint Model
A technical analysis comparing two fundamental stablecoin minting mechanisms. This guide examines the trade-offs in capital efficiency, security, and user experience for CTOs and protocol architects designing or integrating stablecoin systems.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Collateral Dilemma
Choosing between Burn-and-Mint and Lock-and-Mint models defines your protocol's security, capital efficiency, and user experience.
Lock-and-Mint takes a different approach by requiring users to temporarily deposit and lock collateral (e.g., BTC in a multi-sig) to mint a wrapped representation (e.g., wBTC). This strategy, used by Wormhole (wETH) and Polygon PoS (plasma bridges), prioritizes capital efficiency and user familiarity, as the original asset can theoretically be redeemed. The key trade-off is the introduction of custodial or trust-minimized risk vectors in the bridge or custodian, and the reliance on active, honest actors to manage the locked collateral pool.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing sovereign security and verifiable scarcity for a new native asset, choose Burn-and-Mint. If you prioritize capital efficiency, liquidity bootstrapping, and seamless user onboarding for representing existing assets, choose Lock-and-Mint. The former builds a new economy; the latter mirrors an existing one.
tldr-summary
Burn-and-Mint vs Lock-and-Mint
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of two dominant tokenomics models for cross-chain asset bridging, focusing on capital efficiency, security, and use-case fit.
01
Burn-and-Mint (e.g., Axelar, Stargate)
Native Asset Focus: Burns tokens on source chain, mints canonical representation on destination. This creates a unified liquidity pool and is ideal for DeFi composability (e.g., using USDC from Ethereum directly in a Cosmos app).
1 Asset
Canonical Form
02
Lock-and-Mint (e.g., Polygon PoS Bridge, Arbitrum Bridge)
Wrapped Asset Model: Locks assets on L1, mints a wrapped derivative (e.g., WETH, bridgeUSDC) on L2/L2. This is simpler for scaling rollups but fragments liquidity and introduces bridge dependency risk.
2+ Assets
Fragmented Liquidity
03
Choose Burn-and-Mint For
Interoperability-First Protocols building cross-chain dApps.
- Use Case: A lending protocol that needs the same asset (e.g., AXL-USDC) across 50+ chains for uniform collateral.
- Trade-off: Accepts higher initial complexity for long-term composability and a single canonical asset.
04
Choose Lock-and-Mint For
Scaling & Throughput Focus where the primary goal is moving value from L1 to a specific L2.
- Use Case: Users bridging ETH to Arbitrum for lower fees, accepting a wrapped asset (WETH) that's native to that rollup's ecosystem.
- Trade-off: Simpler implementation but locks you into a specific bridge's security model.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Burn-and-Mint vs Lock-and-Mint Model Comparison
Direct comparison of key economic and operational metrics for cross-chain token bridging models.
| Metric / Feature | Burn-and-Mint Model | Lock-and-Mint Model |
|---|---|---|
Native Asset Requirement | ||
Canonical Bridge Security | Dependent on destination chain | Dependent on source chain |
Gas Fee Burden on User | Pays gas on destination chain | Pays gas on source chain |
Liquidity Provider Role | Not required | Essential (custodians) |
TVL Concentration Risk | Low | High (in bridge vaults) |
Protocol Examples | Axelar (GA), Wormhole (NTT), Chainlink CCIP | Polygon PoS Bridge, Arbitrum Bridge |
pros-cons-a
A TOKENOMIC SHOWDOWN
Burn-and-Mint Model: Pros and Cons
A side-by-side comparison of two dominant cross-chain token models. Use this to evaluate which aligns with your protocol's security, capital efficiency, and user experience goals.
01
Burn-and-Mint: Capital Efficiency
Native supply control: Tokens are burned on the source chain and minted on the destination, keeping the total circulating supply constant. This prevents inflationary dilution and is ideal for deflationary assets or tokens with a strict supply cap (e.g., Bitcoin, deflationary ERC-20s).
02
Burn-and-Mint: Protocol Sovereignty
Reduced bridge dependency: Once minted, assets on the destination chain are native and don't rely on a bridge's locked vault for redemption. This mitigates bridge hack risk for the end-user post-transfer, as seen in models used by Axelar (for GMP) and Chainlink CCIP.
03
Lock-and-Mint: Liquidity & Composability
Deep liquidity pools: Assets are locked on the source chain and represented by minted bridged tokens (e.g., WETH, USDC.e). This creates large, unified liquidity pools essential for DeFi protocols like Aave or Uniswap, which require standardized asset representations.
04
Lock-and-Mint: User Experience & Speed
Faster finality for users: The minting of the wrapped asset is often faster than waiting for burn proofs to be verified and minted on the destination. This provides a better UX for high-frequency traders and dApps prioritizing sub-second cross-chain actions.
05
Burn-and-Mint: Complexity & Cost
Higher operational overhead: Requires secure relayers or light clients to verify burn proofs, increasing protocol complexity and gas costs for the end-user. This can be prohibitive for high-volume, low-value transactions.
06
Lock-and-Mint: Centralized Risk Vector
Bridge as a custodian: Assets are concentrated in the bridge's vaults, creating a single point of failure. Over $2.5B has been stolen from bridge hacks (e.g., Wormhole, Ronin). This model demands extreme trust in the bridge's security audit and multisig.
pros-cons-b
BURN-AND-MINT VS LOCK-AND-MINT
Lock-and-Mint Model: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs of the two dominant cross-chain token bridging architectures at a glance.
01
Burn-and-Mint: Protocol Control
Native token supply management: The protocol burns tokens on the source chain and mints canonical representations on the destination. This centralizes monetary policy, allowing for dynamic inflation/deflation adjustments (e.g., Axelar's AXL emissions). This matters for protocols that require tight control over cross-chain tokenomics and want to avoid liquidity fragmentation.
02
Burn-and-Mint: Unified Security
Single validator set secures all assets: Cross-chain messages and minting authority are governed by a dedicated, staked validator set (e.g., Axelar, Wormhole). This creates a consistent security model for all connected chains, with slashing for malfeasance. This matters for institutions and high-value transfers where security uniformity across 50+ chains is critical.
03
Lock-and-Mint: Capital Efficiency
Assets remain locked, not destroyed: User's native assets (e.g., ETH) are locked in a vault on the source chain (e.g., Polygon PoS bridge), and a wrapped version (e.g., WETH) is minted on the destination. This preserves the original asset's collateral utility and liquidity on the source chain. This matters for DeFi protocols where maximizing asset utility across multiple ecosystems is a priority.
04
Lock-and-Mint: Simpler Trust Assumptions
Relies on underlying chain security: The security of locked assets depends on the consensus of the source chain (e.g., Ethereum's validators) and a multi-sig or light client for attestation. This can be conceptually simpler for users who already trust the base layer. This matters for EVM-native teams and users who prioritize transparent, chain-native custody models over a new validator set.
05
Burn-and-Mint: Potential Centralization Risk
Minting authority is centralized: The power to mint canonical assets rests with the protocol's validator set, creating a single point of failure/coordination. If the bridge is compromised, minted assets on all chains lose value. This matters for teams with extreme decentralization mandates or those bridging extremely high-value state (e.g., full blockchain history).
06
Lock-and-Mint: Liquidity Fragmentation
Creates wrapped asset variants: Each bridge creates its own wrapped version (e.g., WETH, Wrapped BTC), leading to liquidity silos and peg instability risks (see Multichain exploit). This complicates DeFi composability as protocols must integrate multiple standards. This matters for projects building cross-chain DEXs or money markets that require a single canonical asset.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which Model
Burn-and-Mint for DeFi
Verdict: The superior choice for sustainable, utility-driven economies. Strengths: Aligns token value directly with network usage. Fees paid in the native asset (e.g., ETH) are burned, creating a deflationary pressure that benefits all token holders. This model is battle-tested by protocols like EIP-1559 on Ethereum, which has burned over 4 million ETH. It's ideal for L1s, L2s (Optimism, Arbitrum), and cross-chain bridges (Polygon POS) where the token's primary role is to secure and govern the network.
Lock-and-Mint for DeFi
Verdict: Best for bootstrapping liquidity and enabling collateralized services. Strengths: Users lock a high-value asset (e.g., BTC, ETH) to mint a synthetic or wrapped version (e.g., wBTC, stETH). This is critical for bringing off-chain value on-chain and is the foundation of collateralized debt positions (MakerDAO), liquid staking (Lido), and Bitcoin DeFi (Threshold Network, Stacks). It provides immediate liquidity and capital efficiency but introduces custodial or trust assumptions.
CROSS-CHAIN TOKENOMICS
Technical Deep Dive: Mechanics and Risks
The core economic and security models of cross-chain bridges define their resilience and user experience. This section compares the dominant tokenomics frameworks for moving assets between blockchains.
The core difference is in how the canonical token supply is managed. In a Burn-and-Mint model (e.g., Axelar, Stargate), tokens are burned on the source chain and newly minted on the destination chain, keeping the total supply constant. In a Lock-and-Mint model (e.g., most canonical bridges like Polygon PoS Bridge), tokens are locked in a vault on the source chain, and a wrapped representation is minted on the destination, creating a 1:1 backed synthetic asset. The former is supply-elastic across chains; the latter is supply-fixed and collateralized.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on selecting the optimal tokenomics model for your protocol's economic security and growth.
The Burn-and-Mint Model (e.g., Chainlink's LINK, Helium's HNT) excels at creating a direct, utility-driven demand loop for the native token. Every transaction or service usage requires burning tokens, which creates a deflationary pressure that can increase token scarcity as network usage grows. For example, Chainlink's staking mechanism burns a portion of service fees, directly tying the cost of its oracle services to the consumption and reduction of the LINK supply. This model is powerful for protocols where the token's primary function is to pay for a core, high-volume service, aligning long-term value accrual with network utility.
The Lock-and-Mint Model (e.g., Lido's stETH, MakerDAO's DAI) takes a different approach by using collateralization to secure the network and mint a derivative asset. This results in a trade-off between capital efficiency and security. While it allows users to retain exposure to their locked assets (e.g., earning staking rewards on ETH while using stETH in DeFi), it introduces systemic risks like collateral volatility and liquidation cascades. The model's success is measured by Total Value Locked (TVL), with protocols like Lido securing over $30B in ETH, demonstrating its ability to attract capital but also concentrating risk.
The key trade-off is between demand-driven scarcity and collateral-backed stability. If your priority is creating a self-reinforcing economic engine where usage directly reduces supply, choose Burn-and-Mint. This is ideal for utility protocols, oracle networks, and decentralized physical infrastructure (DePIN). If you prioritize capital efficiency, enabling users to leverage locked assets across the DeFi ecosystem while ensuring stability, choose Lock-and-Mint. This is critical for stablecoins, liquid staking tokens, and lending protocols where the peg or derivative's reliability is paramount.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall