Native bridging is the process of moving a blockchain's native asset—like Ether (ETH) on Ethereum or Solana (SOL) on Solana—directly to another chain, where it becomes the canonical asset on that destination network. This contrasts with solutions that lock the original asset and mint a synthetic, wrapped version (e.g., wETH) on the target chain. Native bridges are often built and maintained by the core development teams of the respective blockchains, making them the official or canonical bridge for that ecosystem. For example, the Arbitrum Bridge is the native bridge for moving ETH from Ethereum to the Arbitrum L2 rollup.
LABS
Glossary
Native Bridging
Native bridging is a cross-chain bridge mechanism that is officially built, maintained, and sanctioned by the core development team of a blockchain network.
Chainscore © 2026
definition
BLOCKCHAIN INTEROPERABILITY
What is Native Bridging?
Native bridging is a method for transferring assets between different blockchains using the inherent, canonical protocol of the destination chain, without relying on third-party intermediaries or wrapped assets.
The technical mechanism typically involves a lock-and-mint or burn-and-mint model on a protocol level. When a user initiates a transfer, the native assets are either locked in a secure smart contract on the source chain or are burned (destroyed). The bridge's validators or light clients then cryptographically prove this event to the destination chain, which subsequently mints an equivalent amount of the native asset there. This process relies on the security assumptions of the underlying chains, such as Ethereum's consensus for L2 bridges, rather than introducing a new, external set of validators.
Key advantages of native bridges include sovereignty (users hold the canonical asset), security (often inheriting from the base layer), and simplicity for end-users within an ecosystem. However, they are usually limited to transferring the chain's primary token between a specific pair of networks (e.g., Ethereum ↔ Arbitrum) and may have slower withdrawal times for security reasons. They form the foundational interoperability layer for modular blockchain architectures, especially between Layer 1s and their associated Layer 2 rollups or app-chains.
how-it-works
MECHANISM
How Native Bridging Works
An explanation of the core technical process for transferring assets directly between two blockchains using their inherent protocols, without relying on third-party custodians or wrapped tokens.
Native bridging is a blockchain interoperability mechanism that enables the direct transfer of a blockchain's inherent asset—like Bitcoin (BTC) on its own network—to another chain, such as Ethereum, by locking the original asset in a smart contract or validator-secured vault on the source chain and minting a representative version on the destination chain. This process, often called a lock-and-mint or burn-and-mint model, is natively supported and validated by the protocols of the two connected chains or a dedicated bridging protocol. Unlike solutions that rely on third-party custodians, native bridges typically aim for a more trust-minimized or decentralized security model, though their security is fundamentally tied to the consensus mechanisms of the involved chains.
The technical flow begins when a user initiates a transfer, sending assets to a designated smart contract address on the source chain (e.g., the Bitcoin bridge contract). A network of validators or oracles, which are often the same entities securing the destination chain, observes and attests to this deposit event. Once consensus is reached that the funds are securely locked, a corresponding transaction is authorized on the destination chain to mint an equivalent amount of the bridged asset. For the return journey, the representative tokens on the destination chain are burned (destroyed), and a cryptographic proof of this burn is relayed back to unlock the original assets on the source chain.
Key to understanding native bridges is their security and trust assumptions. A canonical bridge, like the one from Ethereum to its Layer 2 rollups, is often considered the most secure as it is officially built and maintained by the core development teams, with security derived directly from the underlying Layer 1. However, bridges connecting two entirely separate Layer 1 chains (e.g., Bitcoin to Ethereum) introduce a new bridging protocol with its own validator set, creating a distinct security surface. The safety of the locked funds depends entirely on the honesty and censorship-resistance of this intermediary validator set, which can become a central point of failure.
Prominent examples include the Polygon POS Bridge (which uses a set of staked validators), the Arbitrum L1-L2 Gateway (a canonical rollup bridge secured by Ethereum), and wBTC (which, while involving a custodian, uses a mint-and-burn model for Bitcoin on Ethereum). Developers must evaluate native bridges based on their trust model, liveness guarantees, censorship resistance, and economic security when designing cross-chain applications, as these factors directly impact the risk profile of bridged assets.
key-features
ARCHITECTURE
Key Features of Native Bridges
Native bridges are canonical, chain-specific protocols for moving assets between a Layer 1 blockchain and its Layer 2 scaling solution. They are distinguished by their deep integration with the underlying protocol's security and consensus.
01
Canonical & Trust-Minimized
A native bridge is the official, protocol-level bridge built and maintained by the core development team of the blockchain (e.g., Optimism, Arbitrum, zkSync). It is considered canonical because it is the primary, sanctioned path for moving assets to and from its Layer 2. This design minimizes trust by inheriting security directly from the underlying Layer 1, as bridge logic is verified by the L1's validators.
02
Minting & Burning Mechanism
The core mechanism involves locking and minting tokens. When bridging from L1 to L2:
- Tokens are locked in a smart contract on the L1.
- An equivalent amount is minted as a wrapped representation on the L2.
The reverse process involves burning the tokens on the L2 to unlock the original assets on the L1. This ensures the total supply across both chains remains consistent and non-inflationary.
03
Fast Withdrawals vs. Challenge Periods
Withdrawal speeds vary by architecture. Optimistic Rollup bridges (like Arbitrum, Optimism) have a challenge period (typically 7 days) where withdrawals are delayed to allow for fraud proofs. Zero-Knowledge Rollup bridges (like zkSync Era, Starknet) enable instant withdrawals because validity proofs provide immediate, cryptographic assurance of the L2 state's correctness, requiring no waiting period.
04
Protocol Revenue & Fee Capture
Native bridges are a primary source of protocol revenue. They typically charge a fee for the bridging transaction, which is paid in the native gas token of the destination chain (e.g., ETH on Arbitrum). This fee is often used to fund protocol development, security, or in some cases, is burned as part of a deflationary mechanism, directly tying the bridge's utility to the chain's economic model.
05
Messaging for Cross-Chain Composability
Beyond simple asset transfers, native bridges provide a generic message passing system. This allows smart contracts on the L1 and L2 to communicate, enabling complex cross-chain applications. For example, a user could deposit collateral on L1 and trigger a loan issuance on an L2 DeFi protocol through a single, atomic transaction facilitated by the bridge's messaging layer.
06
Examples & Ecosystem Role
Prominent examples include the Arbitrum Bridge, Optimism Gateway, and zkSync Era Bridge. These bridges are not just utilities but foundational infrastructure. They are the first point of entry for liquidity and users into the L2 ecosystem, and their security and reliability are critical for the entire network's adoption and trust.
examples
PROTOCOL-LEVEL IMPLEMENTATIONS
Examples of Native Bridges
These are bridges built and maintained by the core development teams of their respective blockchains, offering the most direct and integrated cross-chain experience.
security-considerations
NATIVE BRIDGING
Security & Trust Considerations
Native bridges are core infrastructure for cross-chain communication, but their security models introduce distinct trust assumptions and attack vectors that must be understood.
01
Trust Assumptions & Validator Sets
A native bridge's security is defined by its validator set or multi-signature (multisig) configuration. This is the core trust model. Users must trust that the majority of these validators will not collude to steal funds. Key factors include:
- Decentralization: The number and distribution of validators.
- Fault Tolerance: The threshold (e.g., 5-of-9) required to authorize a transaction.
- Identity: Whether validators are known entities (federated) or permissionless.
02
Upgradeability & Admin Keys
Most native bridges have upgradeable smart contracts controlled by admin keys or a DAO. This introduces centralization risk, as the admin can potentially:
- Pause the bridge, freezing all funds.
- Upgrade contract logic, which could introduce malicious code.
- Change the validator set. A timelock on upgrades and multi-signature controls are critical mitigations, but the ultimate trust lies with the key holders.
03
Economic Security & Slashing
Some native bridges implement cryptoeconomic security where validators must stake the native asset (e.g., ETH, MATIC). Slashing mechanisms punish malicious behavior by burning a portion of the stake. This aligns incentives but its effectiveness depends on:
- The slashable stake value relative to the total value locked (TVL) in the bridge.
- The speed and certainty of detecting and proving fraud.
04
Relayer & Monitoring Risks
Bridges rely on relayers to submit transaction proofs between chains. If relayers go offline, the bridge halts. Furthermore, the security of one chain can impact the other. A 51% attack or significant chain reorganization on the source chain could allow double-spending of bridged assets. Robust, decentralized relay networks and long confirmation wait times are used to mitigate this.
05
Smart Contract & Implementation Risk
The bridge's security is only as strong as its code. Smart contract vulnerabilities are a primary risk, as seen in major exploits like the Wormhole ($325M) and Ronin Bridge ($625M) hacks. Risks include:
- Logic flaws in message verification.
- Signature verification bugs.
- Reentrancy attacks on the liquidity pools. Extensive audits and bug bounty programs are essential but not guarantees.
06
Liquidity & Custody Models
Native bridges typically use a locked/minted model: assets are locked on Chain A and a wrapped representation is minted on Chain B. This concentrates custody risk in the bridge's vault contract on the source chain. If that vault is compromised, all bridged assets across all chains are at risk. This creates a single point of failure distinct from the risks on the destination chain.
CROSS-CHAIN ARCHITECTURE
Native Bridge vs. Third-Party Bridge
A technical comparison of the core architectural and operational differences between a blockchain's canonical bridge and independent bridging solutions.
| Feature | Native Bridge | Third-Party Bridge |
|---|---|---|
Architectural Control | Canonical, protocol-governed | External, independent protocol |
Security Model | Relies on native consensus (e.g., validators) | Varies (e.g., MPC, light clients, custodial) |
Trust Assumption | Trust the underlying blockchain's security | Trust the bridge operator's specific security setup |
Liquidity Source | Typically mint/burn on destination | Lock/mint or liquidity pool based |
Fee Structure | Often just gas costs | Bridge operator fee + gas costs |
Upgradeability & Governance | Controlled by core DAO/protocol | Controlled by bridge operator's governance |
Interoperability Scope | Usually specific to its ecosystem | Often multi-chain, connecting many ecosystems |
Speed (Finality to Transfer) | Optimized for native chain finality | Varies by design; can be faster or slower |
ecosystem-usage
NATIVE BRIDGING
Ecosystem Role and Usage
Native bridging refers to cross-chain communication protocols that are built directly into a blockchain's core consensus layer, enabling trust-minimized asset and data transfer without relying on external, third-party validators.
01
Trust Assumption & Security
Native bridges derive their security from the underlying blockchain's own consensus mechanism and validator set. This creates a trust-minimized environment where users only need to trust the security of the two connected chains, not a separate, potentially centralized bridge operator. This contrasts with external bridges that introduce new trust assumptions.
02
Core Technical Mechanism
These bridges typically use light clients or state proofs. A light client on Chain A verifies the consensus proofs from Chain B, allowing it to trustlessly validate events (like a lock transaction) that occurred on the foreign chain. This enables the native minting of a representative asset on the destination chain without a custodian.
03
Primary Use Case: Canonical Assets
The main function is minting canonical, or native, wrapped assets (e.g., wETH on a non-Ethereum chain). When asset X is locked on its origin chain, an equivalent IBC token (Inter-Blockchain Communication) or native vault-minted token is created on the destination chain. This asset is considered the official, canonical representation for that ecosystem.
04
Ecosystem Examples
- Cosmos IBC: The canonical example, using light clients and Merkle proofs for inter-zone communication.
- Polkadot XCM: A native messaging format for parachains within the Polkadot and Kusama relay chain ecosystem.
- Layer 2 Native Bridges: The official deposit/withdrawal bridges for rollups (Optimism, Arbitrum) to Ethereum L1, secured by L1 smart contracts and fraud/validity proofs.
05
Advantages Over External Bridges
- Superior Security: Leverages base-layer crypto-economic security.
- Canonical Status: Creates the official bridged asset, fostering liquidity unification.
- Protocol Integration: Enables seamless cross-chain composability for native DeFi applications.
- Reduced Counterparty Risk: Eliminates reliance on a multisig or external validator set.
06
Limitations & Trade-offs
- Development Complexity: Extremely difficult to implement, requiring deep consensus-level changes.
- Limited Scope: Typically only connects chains within the same ecosystem or with similar consensus (e.g., Cosmos SDK chains).
- Less Flexible: Harder to support arbitrary message passing or connections to heterogeneous chains (e.g., Ethereum to Bitcoin) natively.
NATIVE BRIDGING
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Native bridges are the canonical, protocol-sanctioned pathways for moving assets between blockchains. This FAQ addresses common technical questions about their operation, security, and trade-offs.
A native bridge is a cross-chain communication protocol built and maintained by the core development team of a blockchain, serving as the canonical pathway for moving assets to and from its network. It typically works by locking or burning tokens on the source chain and minting a corresponding representation (often called a wrapped token) on the destination chain. For example, the Arbitrum bridge locks ETH on Ethereum L1 and mints an equivalent amount of ArbETH on the Arbitrum L2. The bridge's state and security are directly tied to the consensus mechanisms of the connected chains, often using light clients or fraud proofs to verify transactions.
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