Cross-chain bridges remain one of the most convenient yet risky parts of the crypto market. They help transfer assets between networks, swap tokens, and work with DeFi without being tied to a single blockchain. But this very infrastructure has been a target for hackers for years.
In 2026, the question is no longer whether a user needs a bridge. The question is: which route to choose to avoid getting a wrapped token with extra risk, getting stuck in a low-liquidity pool, or becoming part of the next major hack. Especially after attacks like the Kelp DAO incident, where losses were estimated at nearly $292 million.
What Is a Cross-Chain Bridge
A cross-chain bridge allows value to move between different blockchains. For example, a user can swap ETH in Arbitrum for USDT in BNB Chain or transfer an asset from Ethereum to Solana.
This is different from a multichain approach. Multichain means an app simply works on several networks. Cross-chain already implies the movement of assets or messages between them.
In practice, a bridge solves a simple task: a user wants to exit one network and receive an asset in another. But under the hood, different services handle this task differently, and that is what determines the risk.
What Types of Bridges Are There
The first model is lock-and-mint. An asset is locked in one network, and its wrapped version is issued in another. Many inter-network exchange solutions work this way. The main risk is obvious: if the contract with locked funds is hacked, the wrapped token can lose its backing.
The second model is liquidity bridges. There are pools in different networks from which the user receives the native asset on the destination side. This approach is more convenient because it does not always require wrappers, but it depends on liquidity depth.
The third option is instant-swap aggregators. They do not always look like a classic bridge. The user sends one asset in one network and receives another asset in another network, with the route assembled through partner liquidity sources. This reduces the risk of a single bridge contract but adds the risk of slippage and route quality.
How to Choose a Bridge in 2026
The main criterion is the trust model. You need to understand who confirms the transfer, where the liquidity is, whether there is a wrapped token, and what happens if the bridge stops working.
The second factor is audit and incident history. For bridges, this is especially important. If the protocol has already experienced a hack, you need to look not only at the fact of the attack but also at the team’s response: did they return the funds, strengthen security, or change the architecture.
The third point is fee transparency. In cross-chain operations, the price consists not only of the service fee. There is gas in the source network, gas in the destination network, the bridge fee, the spread, and possible slippage.
Another important point is support for non-EVM networks. Most solutions work well with Ethereum and L2, but coverage of Solana, Bitcoin, Tron, Near, XRP Ledger, and other networks often varies. Therefore, there is no universally best bridge. There is the best option for a specific task.
ChangeNOW Is Suitable for Simple Swaps
ChangeNOW works as an instant-swap aggregator. The user sends an asset in one network and receives the native asset in another, without needing to manually handle wrapped tokens.
The service’s strong point is simplicity. There is no separate contract with a large TVL that becomes a target for attacks. You also do not need to manage gas in several networks at once if the task is just a regular swap.
The platform supports more than 110 blockchains and a large number of assets. This makes it convenient for retail users who need to quickly swap tokens between networks without complex DeFi mechanics.
The downside is also clear. Fixed-rate deals usually include a premium for rate locking, and floating-rate can deviate from the initial estimate. So for large amounts, you still need to carefully check the final quote.
Across Focuses on Fast Transfers
Across is a liquidity bridge with a solver model. Its strength is fast transfers, native asset on the destination side, and low fees thanks to batch settlement processing.
The protocol has passed OpenZeppelin audits, and its model uses optimistic verification and a relayer network. This is not a classic bridge with a validator set, but infrastructure where disputed operations can be challenged.
For the user, the main advantage is that they receive not a wrapped token but the native asset. This reduces the risk of the IOU model, where the token depends on the bridge’s operability and backing in the source network.
The weak point is dependence on liquidity and rare cases of delays in disputed scenarios. Under normal conditions, transfers are fast, but in the worst case, finality can take longer.
Stargate Remains a Strong DeFi Route
Stargate is built on LayerZero and focuses on cross-chain liquidity. It is well suited for DeFi scenarios where a bridge transfer can be part of a more complex operation.
The service supports a large number of networks and uses the LayerZero model for message passing. The second version emphasizes lower fees, batch processing, and scalability.
Stargate’s advantage is broad coverage and high compatibility with DeFi applications. Its routes can be embedded in other transactions, which is convenient for protocols and advanced users.
The main risk is related to LayerZero trust settings and liquidity on specific routes. On popular directions, this is not so noticeable, but in less liquid networks, transfers can run into pool depth limits.
Squid Is Convenient for Complex Routes
Squid works as a cross-chain router and assembles routes through many liquidity sources. It grew out of the Axelar ecosystem but has become independent infrastructure for swaps between networks.
Squid’s strong point is broad coverage. The service supports more than 100 networks and tens of thousands of tokens. It can select routes through DEXs, off-chain sources, and various messaging protocols.
A separate plus is the intent model, where market makers compete to execute the trade. This can provide a better price, especially if the route is complex and includes several networks or assets.
The downside is that long routes always carry more risk. The more links in the swap, the higher the chance of slippage, liquidity failure, or delay.
Wormhole Offers Broad Connectivity but Has a History of Hacks
Wormhole remains one of the most well-known solutions for inter-network infrastructure. It supports more than 45 networks, including Solana, Sui, Aptos, Near, Algorand, and Cosmos-based networks.
The advantage here is broad connectivity and a developed infrastructure for developers. Native Token Transfers allow projects to create and move tokens between networks without the classic dependence on liquidity pools.
But the service has an important historical risk. In 2022, the bridge was hacked for 120,000 wETH, with losses then estimated at about $323 million. The funds were later compensated by Jump Crypto, but the incident itself remains part of the risk assessment.
Now the infrastructure has undergone many audits and received significant improvements. However, for the user, this is an example of a bridge where strong coverage must be weighed against its past security history.
deBridge Emphasizes a 0-TVL Model
deBridge uses a solver approach and a 0-TVL architecture. This means the protocol does not hold huge pools of funds in the bridge, and liquidity is provided by executors competing for the order.
The user receives a guaranteed rate and a minimum amount to be received before signing the operation. If the transaction is not executed or is canceled, fees are refunded. This reduces the risk of funds getting stuck.
The project has 26 audits and a stated history without major incidents. The ability to cancel an unexecuted order is also important so the user does not get stuck in a failed operation.
The downside is that quotes can vary by route and time of day. The solver model depends on executor competition, so on less popular routes, the price may be worse.
Which Bridge to Choose for Your Task
For stablecoin transfers between Ethereum L2s, Across or Stargate are usually more suitable. They provide the native asset, a fast route, and clear DeFi integration.
For swaps between EVM and non-EVM networks, it is better to look toward Squid, Wormhole, or instant-swap services. Here, network coverage is more important than the minimum fee.
If you just need to swap one asset for another in different networks, aggregators like ChangeNOW or Rango may be simpler than a “bridge plus DEX” combination. But before the deal, you need to check the final price and slippage.
For Bitcoin, things are more complicated. Native BTC is hard to integrate into smart contract networks without compromises. The user will have to choose between wrapped options, specialized solutions, or a regular instant-swap if they need not tokenized BTC but the asset’s value in another network.
Why Bridges Keep Getting Hacked
Cross-chain infrastructure is complex by definition. It connects different networks, different security models, and different transaction confirmation mechanisms.
The main risks remain the same: smart contract bugs, validator or oracle capture, signature reuse, governance attacks, frontend or DNS compromise. Even if the contract is safe, a user can end up on a fake site and send funds to an attacker.
That is why you need to choose a bridge not only by speed and fee. It is more important to look at the security model, audit, past incidents, liquidity depth, and what exactly the user receives: a native asset or a wrapped token.
What Is Next?
In 2026, the bridge market is becoming more mature but no less risky. Simple routes are gradually moving to aggregators and solver models, while classic lock-and-mint solutions remain important for developers and complex cross-chain applications.
The winners will not be the services that support the most networks on their landing page. The winners will be those who can combine reasonable speed, transparent fees, a clear trust model, and a good security track record.
The main takeaway is simple. For small swaps, an aggregator with a native asset on output is more convenient. For DeFi routes, liquidity and compatibility are important. For large amounts, security and verifiability of the entire chain become decisive, not convenience.
Read More: MORPHO Surges Amid $175 Million Funding Round
