Hop Protocol excels at providing fast, low-cost transfers for canonical assets like ETH, USDC, and DAI by deploying a network of automated market makers (AMMs) on each connected chain. This creates a unified liquidity pool system where users bridge via a canonical hToken (e.g., hETH) that can be instantly redeemed on the destination chain. For example, bridging from Arbitrum to Polygon can take under 10 minutes with fees often under $5, leveraging deep liquidity in its native pools. This model prioritizes speed and cost predictability for high-volume, established assets.
LABS
Comparisons
Hop vs Multichain: Liquidity Pools
A technical analysis comparing Hop Protocol's decentralized, bonded liquidity model with Multichain's centralized liquidity pools. We evaluate security architecture, capital efficiency, and operational trade-offs for engineering leaders.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Architectural Divide
The fundamental choice between Hop Protocol and Multichain (formerly Anyswap) hinges on their opposing models for managing cross-chain liquidity.
Multichain takes a different approach by employing a router model that dynamically sources liquidity from a vast, permissionless network of third-party liquidity providers across over 80 chains. This results in unparalleled asset and chain coverage—supporting thousands of tokens—but introduces variable fees and longer settlement times (often 10-30 minutes) as transactions rely on external validator confirmations. Its strength is flexibility and reach, not optimization for specific asset flows.
The key trade-off: If your priority is predictable, low-cost transfers for major assets between major L2s and EVM chains, choose Hop. Its bonded liquidity pool architecture is built for efficiency on high-traffic corridors. If you prioritize maximum chain and asset coverage for exotic tokens or long-tail chains, choose Multichain. Its router model sacrifices some speed and cost consistency for breadth.
tldr-summary
Hop vs Multichain: Liquidity Pools
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of core architectural and operational trade-offs for cross-chain liquidity.
01
Hop: Capital Efficiency
Optimistic model with bonded relayers: Liquidity is pooled on a single chain (Ethereum L1) and bridged via a fast, optimistic messaging layer. This centralizes capital but enables higher utilization and lower fees for users on supported L2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Polygon. Ideal for protocols with heavy volume between major rollups.
02
Hop: Security & Composability
Non-custodial, audited bridge contracts: Relayers post bonds and can be slashed for fraud, inheriting security from Ethereum. Uses canonical bridges for finality. This creates a trust-minimized path for assets like hETH, hUSDC. Best for DeFi protocols (Aave, Uniswap) requiring secure, composable canonical assets.
03
Multichain: Chain Coverage
Extensive network of independent routers: Supports 70+ chains (EVM and non-EVM like Fantom, Avalanche, Moonbeam) via a router model with liquidity deployed on each chain. This is the decisive factor for projects needing to reach emerging or niche ecosystems beyond the major L2s.
04
Multichain: Liquidity Depth & Speed
Decentralized router network with deep pools: Liquidity is pre-deployed across all supported chains, enabling instant swaps without waiting for optimistic windows. However, this fragments capital. The best choice for users and dApps prioritizing immediate finality across a wide array of chains.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Hop vs Multichain: Liquidity Pools
Direct comparison of key liquidity pool metrics and features for cross-chain bridging.
| Metric | Hop Protocol | Multichain |
|---|---|---|
Native Liquidity Model | Canonical Bridges + Bonders | Anyswap Liquidity Pools |
Avg. Bridge Fee (ETH → Arbitrum) | $5-15 | $10-25 |
Supported Chains | 8 (EVM L2s + Gnosis) | 80+ (EVM & non-EVM) |
Pool Liquidity Source | Protocol-Provided + LP Incentives | Third-Party Liquidity Providers |
Settlement Time | ~10-20 min (Optimistic Rollups) | ~5-30 min (Varies by chain) |
Native Gas Abstraction | ||
Protocol Status (as of 2024) | Active | Deprecated / Inactive |
HOP VS MULTICHAIN: LIQUIDITY POOLS
Security & Trust Model Comparison
Direct comparison of trust assumptions, validator sets, and security controls for cross-chain liquidity.
| Security Metric | Hop Protocol | Multichain |
|---|---|---|
Trust Model | Optimistic + Bonded Relayers | MPC Federation |
Validator Set Size | ~20 Permissioned Relayers | 24+ MPC Nodes |
User Fund Custody | Non-Custodial (User-held) | Custodial (Bridge Contract) |
Slashing Mechanism | ||
Time-Locked Withdrawals | true (Optimistic Window) | |
Maximum Economic Security (TVL) | $200M+ | $1.5B+ (Pre-incident) |
Open Source Audits | Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin | CertiK, SlowMist |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURE & RISK COMPARISON
Hop Protocol vs. Multichain: Liquidity Pools
A side-by-side analysis of liquidity pool mechanics, security models, and operational trade-offs for cross-chain bridging.
01
Hop: Canonical Pool Architecture
Uses native assets on destination chains: Pools consist of the canonical asset (e.g., USDC on Arbitrum, USDC on Optimism). This eliminates wrapped asset risk and ensures seamless integration with native DeFi apps like Aave and Uniswap. Ideal for protocols requiring pure asset composability.
02
Multichain: Anyswap V3 Model
Employs a liquidity network of 'anyToken' wrappers: Routes assets through a network of partner pools. This can offer broader chain support (50+ chains) but introduces counterparty risk with each bridge and wrapper. Best for connecting to exotic chains where native liquidity is scarce.
03
Hop: Capital Efficiency & Speed
Optimistic rollup-focused design: Specialized for L2s, enabling sub-10 minute transfers via bonders providing instant liquidity. Lower TVL requirements per route (~$5-20M pools) due to efficient rebalancing. Optimal for high-frequency, low-value transfers between major rollups.
< 10 min
Typical Transfer Time
04
Multichain: Liquidity Depth & Coverage
Massive aggregated TVL across networks: Historically offered deep liquidity for large transfers (often $1M+ swaps) across a vast array of chains. However, this model relies on centralized risk coordinators and has faced security incidents (July 2023 exploit). Choose for large, one-off transfers to less-supported chains, accepting higher systemic risk.
50+
Supported Chains (Pre-Incident)
pros-cons-b
PROTOCOL COMPARISON
Hop vs Multichain: Liquidity Pools
Key strengths and trade-offs of each liquidity model for cross-chain bridging at a glance.
01
Hop Protocol: Decentralized & Permissionless
Bonding Curve Pools: Uses automated market makers (AMMs) on each chain, allowing anyone to provide liquidity. This creates a non-custodial system where users bridge directly with on-chain liquidity.
Key Advantage: No central operator risk. Liquidity is secured by smart contracts like Uniswap V2 forks on L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism). This matters for protocols prioritizing decentralization and censorship resistance.
7+
Supported Chains
Permissionless
Model
02
Hop Protocol: Capital Efficiency for Rollups
Optimized for L2s: Its model is specifically designed for fast, low-cost Ethereum rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon zkEVM). The short-term bond mechanism allows liquidity providers (LPs) to earn fees with lower capital lock-up periods compared to canonical bridges.
Key Advantage: Faster capital rotation for LPs and lower effective costs for users on high-volume L2 corridors. This matters for high-frequency traders and protocols moving funds between Ethereum's scaling ecosystem.
< 10 min
Typical Bridge Time (L2s)
03
Multichain (Anyswap): Centralized Liquidity Management
Federated MPC Network: Relies on a network of nodes using Multi-Party Computation (MPC) to manage centralized liquidity vaults on each chain. This is a custodial model where the protocol controls the pooled assets.
Key Advantage: Enables arbitrary message passing and cross-chain swaps for a vast array of non-EVM assets (e.g., Bitcoin, Dogecoin, Cosmos). This matters for projects needing broad chain support beyond the EVM ecosystem, accepting the trust assumption in the node federation.
80+
Supported Chains
Federated
Model
04
Multichain (Anyswap): Deep Liquidity & Single Transaction
Unified Liquidity Pools: Maintains deep, protocol-controlled liquidity pools, allowing for large, single-transaction swaps across chains without needing a counterparty on the destination chain.
Key Advantage: Higher swap limits and a simpler user experience (one tx) for moving significant value. This mattered for institutional users and DAOs executing large treasury movements, though the 2023 incident highlights the associated counterparty risk.
$1.5B+
TVL (Pre-2023)
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which
Hop Protocol for DeFi
Verdict: The superior choice for large-scale, trust-minimized DeFi integrations. Strengths:
- Canonical Bridging: Uses native assets (e.g., ETH, USDC) and canonical tokens, avoiding third-party wrapped assets. This is critical for protocols like Aave or Compound that require specific asset types.
- Battle-Tested Security: Relies on a decentralized network of bonded relayers and on-chain fraud proofs, minimizing custodial risk. Over $2B in TVL secured.
- Deep Liquidity Pools: Independent AMM pools per chain pair (e.g., USDC on Arbitrum to USDC on Optimism) provide predictable, stable slippage for large transfers. Ideal For: Integrating a bridge into a lending protocol, DEX aggregator, or any application where asset provenance and security are non-negotiable.
Multichain (Anyswap) for DeFi
Verdict: A pragmatic choice for speed and multi-asset support where wrapped assets are acceptable. Strengths:
- Extensive Asset & Chain Support: Bridges over 3,400+ assets across 80+ chains, including many non-EVM chains. Crucial for accessing niche liquidity.
- Lower Fees & Faster Execution: Uses a centralized MPC model, resulting in faster, cheaper transactions for end-users.
- anyCall Cross-Chain Messaging: Enables complex cross-chain logic (e.g., governance, yield harvesting) beyond simple asset transfers. Trade-off: Relies on a multi-party computation (MPC) network, introducing a different trust assumption than Hop's fraud-proof model.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
Choosing between Hop and Multichain depends on your protocol's core priorities: security and decentralization versus speed and capital efficiency.
Hop Protocol excels at decentralized, non-custodial bridging through its canonical bridge model and native AMM. This architecture, secured by Ethereum L2s and optimistic rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism, minimizes custodial risk. For example, its liquidity pools on networks like Polygon and Gnosis Chain consistently hold significant TVL, providing deep, permissionless liquidity for major assets like USDC, ETH, and DAI. Its focus on rollup-centric interoperability makes it a future-proof choice for protocols building within the Ethereum ecosystem.
Multichain (formerly Anyswap) takes a different approach by utilizing a network of federated MPC nodes to facilitate cross-chain swaps. This strategy results in superior capital efficiency and speed, supporting a vast array of over 3,400 tokens across 80+ chains, including non-EVM networks like Fantom and Avalanche. The trade-off is a higher trust assumption in the node network compared to Hop's canonical bridges. While its AnyCall V7 standard enables complex cross-chain messaging, the protocol's historical security incidents highlight the inherent risks of its custodial model.
The key trade-off: If your priority is security, decentralization, and Ethereum-aligned architecture, choose Hop Protocol. It is the superior choice for protocols requiring non-custodial guarantees and building primarily on Ethereum L2s. If you prioritize maximum chain/token support, speed, and capital efficiency for a diverse asset portfolio, and can accept the associated custodial risk, choose Multichain. Your decision ultimately hinges on whether you value the security of canonical bridges or the expansive liquidity network of a cross-chain router.
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