🌉 Bridge Architectures: Wormhole, LayerZero
Compare bridge designs and security trade-offs
Explore the future of cross-chain technology
Your Progress
0 / 5 completedBridge Architectures
How Bridges Work
Bridges enable asset transfers between blockchains using different technical approaches. Each design balances security, speed, cost, and trust assumptions differently.
🌉 Bridge Transfer Simulator
Select a bridge architecture and simulate a cross-chain transfer:
Lock & Mint
Lock tokens on source, mint wrapped tokens on destination
Bridge Architecture Comparison
| Type | Trust Model | Speed | Cost | Security |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lock & Mint | Trust validators | 🟡 Medium | 🟡 Medium | 🟡 Depends on validators |
| Burn & Mint | Light clients | 🔴 Slow | 🔴 High | 🟢 Trustless |
| Liquidity Pool | LP collateral | 🟢 Fast | 🟢 Low | 🟡 Economic security |
| Atomic Swap | Trustless (HTLC) | 🟡 Medium | 🟢 Low | 🟢 Trustless |
Validator Models
M-of-N signatures required to approve transfers. Simple but centralized. Example: 5-of-8 multisig controls $500M+ bridge—if 5 keys compromised, bridge is drained.
Validators stake tokens and face slashing for malicious behavior. More decentralized but requires token economics and complex coordination.
Verify block headers and merkle proofs cryptographically. Trustless but expensive (storing headers, verifying proofs on-chain). Hardest to implement.
Assume transfers valid unless challenged during fraud proof window. Faster and cheaper than light clients but introduces delay (1-7 days).
💡 The Bridge Trilemma
Bridges cannot simultaneously optimize:
- •Security: Trustless verification vs trusted validators
- •Speed: Instant transfers vs secure finality
- •Cost: Low gas fees vs cryptographic proofs