cBridge (Celer Network) excels at capital efficiency and customizability because it operates on a permissioned, peer-to-peer liquidity pool model. This allows individual LPs and DAOs to create isolated pools for specific token pairs, enabling deep liquidity for niche assets and direct control over fee structures. For example, a protocol like Stargate Finance can bootstrap a dedicated USDC pool with its own community, avoiding dilution from unrelated assets. This model supports over 140+ chains and has facilitated more than $12 billion in cross-chain volume.
LABS
Comparisons
cBridge vs Multichain: Liquidity Model
A technical comparison of cBridge's permissionless, user-provided liquidity model versus Multichain's centralized, MPC-managed liquidity pools. Analyzes trade-offs in capital efficiency, security, and operational control for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Architectural Divide
The fundamental choice between cBridge and Multichain hinges on their opposing approaches to liquidity: permissioned pools versus a unified shared pool.
Multichain (formerly Anyswap) takes a different approach by employing a unified, shared liquidity pool system via its anyToken standard. This strategy aggregates liquidity into single, massive vaults for each asset (e.g., all USDC from all chains in one pool), which results in superior liquidity depth for major blue-chip tokens and simpler user experience. The trade-off is reduced LP autonomy and potential for systemic risk concentration, as seen during the July 2023 security incident that impacted multiple pooled assets across chains.
The key trade-off: If your priority is deep, specialized liquidity for specific tokens with configurable economics, choose cBridge. Its permissioned pool model is ideal for protocols launching new assets or seeking tailored fee models. If you prioritize maximum liquidity depth for major assets (ETH, USDC, WBTC) and operational simplicity for end-users, choose Multichain's shared vault model, understanding the associated custodial and centralization risks.
tldr-summary
LIQUIDITY MODELS COMPARED
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
The core architectural choice: a decentralized, permissionless pool model versus a centralized, managed router model. Your protocol's needs for capital efficiency, security, and supported chains dictate the winner.
01
cBridge: Decentralized Pool Liquidity
User/Protocol-Provided Capital: Liquidity is sourced from permissionless, user-staked pools (e.g., SushiSwap, Uniswap V3). This creates a non-custodial system where bridge operators cannot access user funds, aligning with DeFi's trust-minimized ethos. Ideal for protocols prioritizing self-sovereignty and willing to bootstrap or incentivize their own liquidity pools.
02
cBridge: Capital Efficiency Trade-off
Fragmented Liquidity: Pools are chain-pair specific (e.g., ETH-USDC on Arbitrum <> Optimism). This can lead to lower depth on less popular routes and requires active liquidity management. Best suited for high-volume corridors where protocols or DAOs can provide deep, targeted liquidity, maximizing fee revenue for LPs.
03
Multichain: Centralized Router Liquidity
Managed, Shared Liquidity Pools: Uses large, centrally managed pools ("routers") operated by the Multichain team. This creates a unified liquidity layer, offering superior depth and one-hop swaps across 80+ chains. The model prioritizes user experience and breadth over decentralization, suitable for applications needing reliable cross-chain transfers for a wide asset set.
04
Multichain: Counterparty Risk & Dependence
Custodial Model Risk: Users and protocols are exposed to the solvency and honesty of the router operators. The 2023 security incident, where routers were compromised, highlights the systemic risk of this architecture. Choose this only if maximum chain support and liquidity depth for mainstream assets outweigh the custodial trust assumptions for your use case.
cBRIDGE vs MULTICHAIN
Head-to-Head: Liquidity Model Specifications
Direct comparison of liquidity architecture and operational metrics for cross-chain bridges.
| Metric | cBridge (Celer) | Multichain (Anyswap) |
|---|---|---|
Liquidity Model | Canonical + Liquidity Pool | Liquidity Pool (MPC) + Lock-Mint |
Supported Chains | 50+ | 80+ |
Avg. Bridge Fee | 0.04% | 0.1-0.3% |
Settlement Time | ~3 min | ~10-30 min |
Native Gas Abstraction | ||
TVL (Historical Peak) | $1.5B+ | $10B+ |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
cBridge vs Multichain: Liquidity Model
A direct comparison of the liquidity architectures powering two leading cross-chain bridges. Choose based on your protocol's need for capital efficiency versus permissionless access.
01
cBridge's Liquidity Pool Model
Capital efficiency through shared pools: Uses a canonical pool model where liquidity is aggregated across chains. This concentrates capital, enabling deeper liquidity for major assets like USDC, ETH, and WBTC with lower slippage for large transfers. This matters for high-volume DeFi protocols that require predictable, low-cost swaps for users.
$2B+
TVL (All-time)
02
cBridge's Governance & Curation
Managed risk via whitelisting: Celer Network's SGN (State Guardian Network) curates and secures liquidity providers. This reduces counterparty risk and improves reliability but creates a permissioned barrier for new LPs. This matters for enterprises and large funds seeking a vetted, stable bridge environment over pure decentralization.
03
Multichain's Anyswap V3 Model
Permissionless liquidity provision: Any user can become an LP by depositing into decentralized pools on each supported chain. This fosters a broad, open network of providers, increasing redundancy. This matters for new or long-tail assets where community-driven liquidity bootstrap is essential.
1000+
Supported Tokens
04
Multichain's Fragmentation Risk
Capital dispersion across chains: Liquidity is siloed in independent pools per chain pair (e.g., ETH-USDC on Ethereum, ETH-USDC on Avalanche). This can lead to higher slippage and thinner liquidity for less popular routes compared to aggregated models. This matters for protocols operating on niche chains or requiring uniform depth across many corridors.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
cBridge vs Multichain: Liquidity Model
A technical breakdown of the canonical vs. third-party liquidity approaches, showing which model is better suited for specific deployment scenarios.
01
cBridge: Canonical Liquidity
Direct asset bridging: Transfers native assets via a canonical token standard (e.g., Celer's cTokens). This matters for protocol integrations and composability, as assets maintain their original form on the destination chain. Ideal for long-term asset holders and DeFi protocols requiring standard token interfaces.
40+
Supported Chains
150+
Native Assets
02
cBridge: Security & Efficiency
State Guardian Network (SGN): A decentralized PoS network of validators secures cross-chain messaging, reducing single points of failure. This matters for enterprise-grade security requirements. The model also enables lower gas fees for users by optimizing liquidity utilization across its network.
03
Multichain: Third-Party Liquidity Pools
Deep, aggregated liquidity: Sources liquidity from independent, permissionless pools (e.g., SushiSwap, Curve). This matters for high-volume, large trades and exotic assets, minimizing slippage. It's the best choice for whales and institutional traders moving significant capital across chains.
$1.5B+
Peak TVL
80+
Supported Chains
04
Multichain: Flexibility & Coverage
AnySwap Router model: Enables bridging of any token with a pool, including non-native and long-tail assets. This matters for experimental ecosystems and NFT bridging. The model offers broader asset coverage than canonical bridges, crucial for projects launching on new L2s.
05
cBridge: The Trade-Off
Lower liquidity for new assets: Requires explicit whitelisting and bootstrapping of canonical liquidity, which can be slower. This is a disadvantage for rapid deployment on new chains or for bridging newly launched tokens where liquidity is initially thin.
06
Multichain: The Trade-Off
Smart contract risk exposure: Relies on external, unaudited pool contracts, increasing the attack surface. This matters for security-conscious protocols. The 2023 exploit, resulting in a $130M+ loss, highlights the systemic risk of the aggregated pool model.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
cBridge for DeFi
Verdict: The strategic choice for established protocols prioritizing deep, stable liquidity and composability. Strengths: cBridge's canonical token model and integration with Celer's State Guardian Network (SGN) provide superior composability for DeFi legos. Its liquidity is often more capital-efficient for high-volume, established assets, as it leverages native staking and a decentralized validator set. This model is battle-tested for large TVL movements and complex cross-chain interactions (e.g., bridging into a lending pool in a single transaction). Considerations: Initial liquidity bootstrapping for new assets can be slower compared to liquidity pool models.
Multichain for DeFi
Verdict: Ideal for rapid deployment and supporting a wide array of long-tail assets with flexible liquidity. Strengths: Multichain's AnyCall protocol and router-based liquidity pools allow for incredible flexibility. It excels at supporting exotic or newer assets quickly, as independent liquidity providers can seed pools. This is advantageous for DeFi protocols launching on multiple chains that need to bridge their native token where canonical bridges don't yet exist. Considerations: Reliance on independent LPs can lead to fragmented liquidity and higher slippage for very large trades compared to a canonical model.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between cBridge and Multichain hinges on your protocol's tolerance for centralization versus its need for deep, immediate liquidity.
cBridge excels at providing a decentralized, non-custodial liquidity model by leveraging a network of independent node operators and a canonical token bridging standard. This architecture minimizes counterparty risk and aligns with the security-first ethos of DeFi-native protocols. For example, its integration with LayerZero's oft standard facilitates secure, native cross-chain token transfers, a critical feature for protocols building omnichain applications.
Multichain historically took a different approach by centralizing liquidity in its MPC (Multi-Party Computation) network. This strategy resulted in superior capital efficiency and lower slippage for large, cross-chain swaps, as evidenced by its peak TVL of over $1.5 billion. The trade-off was significant custodial risk, which materialized in the 2023 incident, highlighting the systemic vulnerability of its model.
The key trade-off: If your priority is security, decentralization, and long-term protocol resilience, choose cBridge. Its non-custodial model and use of standards like oft and Circle CCTP for USDC make it the safer strategic dependency. If your priority was deep, aggregated liquidity for a high-volume trading dApp and you could accept the associated custodial risk, Multichain was the historical choice. Given its current inactive state, cBridge (and alternatives like LayerZero, Axelar) are the only viable paths forward for new integrations.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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