نسخهٔ فارسی

Transparent, non-custodial, yours

Nothing crosses a bridge — here is what happens instead

Bridges do not move tokens. They lock on one side and issue a representation on the other, or use a liquidity pool. The model decides the risk.

Lock and mint You hold a claim on a locked reserve
Liquidity network You receive the real asset; the bridge rebalances later
Attestation Validator set, challenge window, light client or validity proof

FBT Swap

What you should know

Tokens cannot leave the chain they were issued on. A bridge creates the appearance of movement by locking the original and producing a claim on the destination, or by paying you out of a pool it already holds there.

The mechanism matters because it determines what you now own and what has to stay solvent for it to be worth anything.

Lock and mint

The canonical model: your tokens are locked in a contract on the source chain and an equivalent amount is minted on the destination. Going back burns the minted tokens and releases the originals.

What you hold on the destination is a claim backed by the locked reserve. Its value depends on that reserve remaining intact and the bridge remaining able to process redemptions.

Liquidity networks

Rather than minting, the bridge pays you from a pool it maintains on the destination chain and rebalances later. You receive the real canonical asset immediately, which is why these routes feel instant.

The cost is a spread, and it widens when flows are one-directional and the destination pool is depleted.

Who is attesting to what

Something must tell the destination chain that the source-side event happened. That is either a set of external validators, an optimistic challenge period, a light client verifying the source chain, or a validity proof.

External validator sets are the weakest and have been the source of the largest bridge losses. Light clients and proofs are stronger and more expensive to run.

Practical consequences

A bridged token is not interchangeable with the native one. Two bridges produce two different tokens with two different pools, and liquidity for one says nothing about the other.

Prefer canonical or native routes where they exist, check which asset you will actually receive, and treat the choice of bridge as a choice of counterparty.

At a glance

At a glance

Lock and mint

You hold a claim on a locked reserve

Liquidity network

You receive the real asset; the bridge rebalances later

Attestation

Validator set, challenge window, light client or validity proof

Consequence

Bridged and native versions are different tokens

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Clear answers before you decide.

Is a bridged token the same as the real one?

No. It is a separate contract whose value depends on the bridge remaining solvent and redeemable. Native issuance on the destination chain is a different and generally stronger instrument.

Why do bridges take different amounts of time?

Because of finality requirements and attestation model. Waiting for source-chain finality is slow and cheap; fronting you liquidity is fast and costs a spread.

Can a bridge transfer be reversed?

Not by you. A stuck transfer can sometimes be completed or refunded by the operator once the route clears, but that is their process, not a guarantee you hold.

Risk notice

Crypto assets are volatile and on-chain transactions cannot be reversed. You can lose money, including all of it. Nothing here is financial advice.