A third-party bridge is an interoperability protocol, typically developed and operated by an independent entity, that enables the transfer of tokens and arbitrary data between otherwise isolated blockchains. Unlike native bridges built and maintained by a blockchain's core development team, third-party bridges are external applications that create a secure connection, or "bridge," between distinct networks like Ethereum, Solana, or Avalanche. They function by locking or burning assets on the source chain and minting or releasing a corresponding representation on the destination chain, often through a system of smart contracts and relayers.
LABS
Glossary
Third-Party Bridge
A third-party bridge is an independent bridging protocol developed and operated by an external team, not the core developers of the connected blockchains.
Chainscore © 2026
definition
BLOCKCHAIN INTEROPERABILITY
What is a Third-Party Bridge?
A third-party bridge is an external, non-native service that facilitates the transfer of digital assets and data between two or more independent blockchain networks.
The architecture of these bridges is critical to their security and trust model. Most operate using one of several models: a trusted or federated model relying on a known set of validators, a trust-minimized model using light clients and cryptographic proofs, or a hybrid approach. This design directly impacts the security assumptions users must accept, as the bridge's operators or its cryptographic mechanisms become a new point of potential failure. High-profile exploits, such as those on the Wormhole and Ronin bridges, have underscored that the security of a third-party bridge is only as strong as its implementation and the economic security of its validators.
Third-party bridges are essential for the multi-chain ecosystem, enabling liquidity and user movement across chains. They empower users to access different DeFi protocols, NFT marketplaces, and Layer 2 scaling solutions without being confined to a single network. For developers, they provide a pathway for cross-chain composability, allowing applications to leverage unique features from multiple blockchains. However, users must carefully evaluate the trade-offs between convenience and the additional counterparty risk and smart contract risk introduced by these external systems when moving assets.
how-it-works
BLOCKCHAIN INTEROPERABILITY
How a Third-Party Bridge Works
A technical breakdown of the multi-step process by which a third-party bridge facilitates the transfer of assets and data between independent blockchain networks.
A third-party bridge is an interoperability protocol that operates as a trusted intermediary to lock, mint, and burn assets across distinct blockchains. Unlike peer-to-peer atomic swap bridges, these systems rely on a centralized or federated set of validators or a multi-signature wallet to custody the original assets on the source chain. When a user initiates a transfer, the bridge's smart contracts lock or burn the assets on the origin chain, and its off-chain operators verify this event before authorizing the minting of a wrapped, synthetic version on the destination chain. This creates a bridged asset, such as Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC) on Ethereum, which represents a claim on the original asset held in custody.
The core operational phases are Lock-and-Mint and Burn-and-Release. In a Lock-and-Mint transfer, the user sends native assets (e.g., ETH) to the bridge's smart contract on Chain A, which are locked. The bridge's validators observe this, and a corresponding wrapped token (e.g., wETH) is minted to the user's address on Chain B. For the return trip, the user burns the wrapped token on Chain B, providing proof to the validators, who then release the original locked assets from the smart contract on Chain A. This process introduces counterparty risk, as the security and honesty of the bridge operators are paramount; a compromise can lead to a total loss of locked funds.
Key technical components include the bridge smart contracts deployed on each connected chain, an off-chain relayer or oracle network that monitors events and submits proofs, and a governance or validator set that reaches consensus on transaction validity. Bridges often use merkle proofs or light client proofs to verify the state of the source chain efficiently. However, this architecture creates centralization points and multiple attack vectors, making third-party bridges frequent targets for exploits, as seen in the Wormhole and Ronin bridge hacks, where validator private keys were compromised.
Prominent examples include Multichain (formerly Anyswap), which uses a federation of SMPC nodes, and Polygon's PoS Bridge, which relies on a set of staked validators. These bridges are essential for liquidity fragmentation, allowing decentralized applications (dApps) on one chain, like an Ethereum-based AMM, to utilize assets native to another chain, such as BNB or SOL. Their utility comes with a clear trade-off: they optimize for user experience and broad compatibility at the cost of introducing significant trust assumptions outside the underlying blockchains' native security models.
key-features
ARCHITECTURE & MECHANICS
Key Features of Third-Party Bridges
Third-party bridges are independent services that facilitate asset and data transfer between distinct blockchains. Their core features define their security model, user experience, and operational mechanics.
01
Custodial vs. Non-Custodial Models
This defines who controls the assets during the bridging process.
- Custodial Bridges: Rely on a centralized entity or multi-signature wallet to hold the locked or minted assets on the source chain. Users must trust this custodian's security and solvency.
- Non-Custodial Bridges: Use smart contracts and cryptographic proofs (like optimistic or zero-knowledge proofs) to manage assets. Users retain control, with the bridge's code serving as the trusted intermediary.
Example: A custodial bridge might pool user funds in an exchange's wallet, while a non-custodial bridge like Hop Protocol uses bonded liquidity pools and automated market makers (AMMs).
02
Liquidity Pools & Mint/Burn
Most bridges rely on liquidity pools to facilitate instant transfers without waiting for finality on the destination chain.
- Lock-and-Mint: Assets are locked in a smart contract on the source chain, and a wrapped, representative token is minted on the destination chain (e.g., Wrapped BTC on Ethereum).
- Liquidity Pool-Based: Users swap assets directly into a pool of liquidity on the destination chain. Bridges like Synapse and Hop use this model, which relies on liquidity providers (LPs) to fund the pools and earn fees.
This mechanism separates the bridge's liquidity security from the underlying blockchain's consensus security.
03
Trust Assumptions & Security Models
The security of a bridge is defined by its weakest trust assumption, which varies significantly by design:
- Federated/Multi-Sig: Trust is placed in a committee of known validators (a federation) who sign off on transfers. This is common but introduces a centralization risk.
- Optimistic: Assumes transactions are valid unless challenged within a fraud-proof window. This model, used by Nomad (prior to its exploit), aims for efficiency but has specific vulnerability periods.
- Light Client/Relay: Uses cryptographic proofs (like Merkle proofs) verified by a smart contract on the destination chain. This is more trust-minimized but computationally expensive. LayerZero's Ultra Light Node (ULN) is a variant of this.
These models create a spectrum from trust-based to cryptographically secure.
04
Message Passing & Generalized Communication
Modern bridges extend beyond simple asset transfers to enable arbitrary data and contract calls across chains.
- Arbitrary Message Passing (AMP): Allows smart contracts on one chain to trigger functions on a contract on another chain. This enables cross-chain DeFi composability, governance, and NFT bridging.
- Protocols like LayerZero and Axelar specialize in this generalized messaging. Instead of just minting a wrapped token, a bridge can instruct a destination chain contract to mint an NFT, execute a swap, or update a state.
This transforms bridges from simple asset pipes into cross-chain communication layers.
05
Centralized Sequencing & Relayer Networks
The process of observing an event on one chain and proving it on another requires off-chain infrastructure.
- Sequencer/Oracle: A network of nodes (often permissioned) that monitors source chain events, packages data, and submits proofs or transactions to the destination chain. This is a common centralization point and failure vector.
- Relayers: These are the agents that pay gas fees to submit the final transaction on the destination chain. They may be operated by the bridge team or incentivized third parties.
The security of the bridge is often contingent on the honesty and liveness of these external actors.
06
Economic Incentives & Fee Structures
Bridges are sustained by economic models that pay for security, liquidity, and operations.
- Liquidity Provider (LP) Incentives: LPs deposit assets to enable instant swaps and earn fees from user transactions. They often receive bridge-specific governance tokens as rewards.
- Relayer/Validator Incentives: Nodes in the bridge's security or messaging network are compensated, often via fees or token emissions, to ensure liveness and honesty.
- Fee Tiers: User fees typically cover destination chain gas costs, bridge protocol fees, and liquidity provider fees. Some bridges implement dynamic pricing based on network congestion.
These incentives must be carefully balanced to ensure the system remains secure and liquid.
CROSS-CHAIN BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE
Third-Party Bridge vs. Native Bridge
A comparison of the two primary architectural models for transferring assets between blockchains, focusing on security, trust, and operational control.
| Feature | Third-Party Bridge | Native Bridge |
|---|---|---|
Architectural Model | Externally operated application or protocol | Core protocol component or canonical standard |
Trust Assumption | Trust in the bridge operator's multisig, committee, or MPC | Trust in the security of the underlying blockchains |
Custody Model | Typically custodial (assets locked in bridge contract) | Typically non-custodial (mint/burn or lock/unlock via canonical contracts) |
Security Surface | Bridge's smart contracts and off-chain validators | Underlying blockchain's consensus and validator set |
Development & Maintenance | Independent team or DAO | Core protocol development team or foundation |
Interoperability Scope | Often supports many chains (10+), custom integrations | Typically connects to 1-2 specific chains, uses canonical standards |
Typical Fee Structure | Service fee + destination chain gas | Destination chain gas only |
Examples | Wormhole, Multichain (formerly Anyswap), Axelar | Arbitrum Nitro Bridge, Optimism Gateway, Polygon PoS Bridge |
examples
CROSS-CHAIN INFRASTRUCTURE
Examples of Third-Party Bridges
Third-party bridges are independent protocols that facilitate asset and data transfer between distinct blockchains. These are prominent examples illustrating different technical approaches and specializations.
ecosystem-usage
THIRD-PARTY BRIDGE
Ecosystem Usage and Integration
Third-party bridges are independent, external services that facilitate the transfer of assets and data between distinct blockchain networks, enabling cross-chain interoperability without requiring direct integration by the core protocol teams.
01
Core Function: Asset Transfer
A third-party bridge's primary function is to lock or burn tokens on a source chain and mint or release corresponding wrapped or native tokens on a destination chain. This process, often called token bridging, enables assets like ETH, USDC, or NFTs to move between ecosystems (e.g., Ethereum to Polygon). The bridge acts as a trusted custodian or uses cryptographic proofs to secure the assets during transfer.
02
Architectural Models
Bridges operate under different trust and security models:
- Lock-and-Mint/Custodial: Assets are locked with the bridge operator or a multi-sig, which mints wrapped tokens on the destination chain. Centralized but simple.
- Burn-and-Mint: Tokens are burned on the source chain, with a verifiable proof allowing minting on the destination chain.
- Liquidity Network/Atomic Swap: Uses liquidity pools on both chains; users swap assets via providers without a central custodian (e.g., Hop Protocol).
- Light Client/Relay: Relayers submit cryptographic proofs (like Merkle proofs) to verify state changes on the source chain, enabling trust-minimized transfers.
03
Key Security Considerations & Risks
Third-party bridges are major attack vectors due to their centralization of value. Key risks include:
- Smart Contract Risk: Bugs in the bridge's locking, minting, or verification contracts.
- Custodial Risk: Compromise of the private keys controlling locked funds in a multi-sig or federated model.
- Validator Risk: Malicious or faulty relayers in proof-based systems.
- Liquidity Risk: Insufficient liquidity in pool-based models, causing failed swaps or high slippage.
- Economic Attacks: Manipulation of oracle prices or proof verification to drain funds.
04
Prominent Examples & Use Cases
Bridges serve as critical infrastructure for DeFi and NFT interoperability.
- Wormhole: A generic message-passing protocol that uses a network of guardians to attest to events, used by Solana, Ethereum, and others.
- Multichain (formerly Anyswap): A cross-chain router using a federation to manage locked assets across many chains.
- Axelar: A blockchain network providing a universal overlay for cross-chain communication via its proof-of-stake validators.
- Use Case: A user bridges USDC from Ethereum to Avalanche to access higher-yield farming opportunities, then bridges profits back.
05
Integration for dApps and Developers
Developers integrate bridges via SDKs and APIs to enable cross-chain functionality in their dApps. This involves:
- Front-end Integration: Adding bridge widget UIs (like Socket/Li.Fi) for users to select source/destination chains and assets.
- Smart Contract Interaction: dApp contracts may call bridge contracts to initiate transfers or verify incoming cross-chain messages.
- Message Passing: Using bridges like LayerZero or Celer's cBridge to trigger actions on a destination chain based on events on a source chain (e.g., cross-chain governance, NFT minting).
06
The Interoperability Trilemma
Bridge design often involves trade-offs between three properties, known as the Interoperability Trilemma:
- Trustlessness: Security equal to the underlying chains it connects. Truly trustless bridges are rare.
- Extensibility: Ability to support a wide range of assets and arbitrary data/messages.
- Generalizability: Ability to connect to many different blockchain architectures (EVM, Cosmos, Solana, etc.). Most bridges optimize for two, sacrificing the third. For example, a liquidity network may be trust-minimized and general but not easily extensible to arbitrary data.
security-considerations
THIRD-PARTY BRIDGE
Security Considerations and Risks
Third-party bridges are critical but high-risk infrastructure, introducing unique security challenges distinct from the underlying blockchains they connect.
02
Smart Contract Vulnerabilities
The bridge's on-chain smart contracts are a primary attack surface. Exploits often target flaws in the minting/burning logic, signature verification, or upgrade mechanisms. A single bug can lead to catastrophic losses, as seen in the Wormhole ($325M) and Ronin Bridge ($625M) hacks. Audits are essential but not foolproof, as novel attack vectors can emerge post-deployment.
03
Validator/Oracle Manipulation
Federated or proof-of-authority bridges depend on a set of external validators or oracles to attest to events (like a deposit). An attacker can compromise this set through a 51% attack on the validator group, bribing validators, or exploiting the consensus mechanism. This allows them to forge fraudulent withdrawal proofs and mint illegitimate tokens on the destination chain.
04
Liquidity & Economic Attacks
Bridges require deep liquidity pools on both sides. They are vulnerable to:
- Liquidity Crunch: A sudden mass withdrawal can deplete pools, causing delays or failed transactions.
- Economic Design Flaws: Improper incentives for liquidity providers (LPs) or validators can lead to instability.
- Market Manipulation: An attacker could drain one side of the bridge and exploit price discrepancies on decentralized exchanges (DEXs).
05
Censorship & Operational Risk
Bridge operators can impose transaction censorship, blocking withdrawals for regulatory or arbitrary reasons. Furthermore, bridges face standard operational risks: DNS hijacking, frontend website compromises, and downtime of critical relayers or indexers. Users are often unaware they are interacting with a web2 frontend that can be a vector for phishing or injection attacks.
06
Systemic & Composability Risk
Bridges create interdependencies across ecosystems. A major bridge failure can trigger a cascade of liquidations and insolvencies in interconnected DeFi protocols. The wrapped assets (e.g., wETH on another chain) minted by a bridge become liabilities for every protocol that accepts them. If the bridge is hacked, these assets may become worthless, causing widespread contagion.
THIRD-PARTY BRIDGES
Common Misconceptions
Third-party bridges are critical infrastructure for cross-chain interoperability, but their operational models and security guarantees are often misunderstood. This section clarifies prevalent myths about their trust assumptions, security, and functionality.
No, third-party bridges are fundamentally different from native bridges in their architecture and governance. A native bridge (or canonical bridge) is built and maintained by the core development team of a blockchain, such as the Arbitrum Bridge for Ethereum L2s or the Polygon PoS Bridge. It is considered the official, sanctioned pathway. A third-party bridge (or external bridge) is built by an independent team, like Wormhole, LayerZero, or Axelar, and operates as a separate application that connects multiple, often unrelated, chains. The key distinction is authority: native bridges are part of the chain's core protocol suite, while third-party bridges are permissionless, external services that must establish their own security and liquidity.
THIRD-PARTY BRIDGE
Frequently Asked Questions
Third-party bridges are critical infrastructure for moving assets between blockchains, but they introduce unique risks and operational complexities. These FAQs address common developer and user concerns.
A third-party bridge is an independent, application-specific protocol that enables the transfer of digital assets and data between two distinct, otherwise incompatible blockchain networks. It works by locking or burning assets on the source chain and minting or releasing a corresponding representation, often called a wrapped asset, on the destination chain. This process is typically facilitated by a network of validators or relayers who monitor events on one chain and submit proof to the other, with the bridge's smart contracts governing the entire mint-burn or lock-unlock cycle. Unlike native bridges built by a blockchain's core developers (e.g., the Arbitrum bridge for Ethereum), third-party bridges like Multichain (formerly Anyswap) or Wormhole are built by external teams to connect a wider array of chains.
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