You hold ETH on Ethereum mainnet but want to trade on Base to save 98% on gas fees. The problem? Your cryptocurrency exists only on Ethereum's ledger and cannot natively interact with Base's ecosystem. You need a bridge.
Blockchain bridges are the infrastructure that enables assets to move between chains that would otherwise remain isolated. They solve a fundamental problem in Web3: as the ecosystem fragments across Layer 2 solutions, alternative Layer 1s, and specialized chains, bridges create pathways for liquidity to flow where users need it.
Understanding how bridges work is not just technical curiosity. It is basic survival. Pick the wrong bridge and you might wait days for a withdrawal. Skip contract verification and you could end up holding a fake token that nobody will buy. Miss a network setting and assets vanish into an irretrievable address.
Ever sent funds to a bridge and had that short moment of panic where you think "did I just lose everything?" This guide explains the mechanisms behind crypto bridges, how to verify transfers safely, and how to choose the right bridge for your needs.
TLDR
Crypto bridges lock your assets on one chain and mint wrapped tokens representing those assets on another chain. The mechanics are not that complex, but the details matter because mistakes are almost always irreversible. If you understand how lock-and-mint works, wrapped assets behave, and security models differ, you can move assets between chains with confidence.
In this guide you will learn
- What a crypto bridge is and why blockchain bridges are necessary
- How lock-and-mint and burn-and-release flows actually work
- The difference between canonical rollup bridges and third-party bridges
- How wrapped assets, depegs, and fake tokens show up in real transactions
- A reusable safety checklist you can follow every time you bridge
What Is a Crypto Bridge and Why It Exists
A blockchain bridge is a protocol that locks assets on a source blockchain and mints equivalent wrapped tokens on a destination blockchain, enabling cross-chain asset transfers without intermediaries.
Think of it like exchanging cash at an airport kiosk, except the clerk is a smart contract that never gets tired, never loses track of amounts, and cannot run away with your money. When you deposit 1 ETH into a bridge contract on Ethereum, that ETH gets locked in escrow. The bridge then mints 1 wrapped ETH (WETH) on Base with an equivalent value. The original ETH never leaves Ethereum. The wrapped version on Base represents your claim to retrieve it later.
As long as the bridge behaves, there is always one locked native asset for every one wrapped token. The bridge cannot mint more wrapped tokens than it has locked, which is your on-chain proof that the system is solvent.
The Problem Bridges Solve
Web3 evolved from a single-chain world dominated by Ethereum to a fragmented multi-chain landscape. Today, users encounter dozens of chains: Ethereum mainnet, Layer 2 rollups like Base and Arbitrum, sidechains like Polygon, and alternative Layer 1s like Solana.
Each chain operates independently with its own validator set, consensus mechanism, and state. Bitcoin cannot natively interact with Ethereum smart contracts. ETH deposited on Ethereum cannot directly access DeFi protocols on Base.
In practice, this fragmentation turns into three real problems for users:
Trapped liquidity - Assets remain locked in their native ecosystems. A user holding USDC on Ethereum cannot lend it on Aerodrome (Base's leading DEX) without first bridging to Base.
High costs on congested chains - Ethereum mainnet gas fees range from $1 to $50+ per transaction during peak demand. Users face a choice: pay expensive fees or move assets to cheaper Layer 2s where transactions cost $0.01 to $0.50.
Fragmented user experience - Without bridges, moving assets between chains requires centralized exchanges as intermediaries. Users would need to withdraw assets to an exchange, convert them, then deposit to a wallet on another chain. This process takes hours, incurs multiple fees, and reintroduces trusted third parties into supposedly trustless transactions.
Bridges solve these problems by creating direct pathways for assets to move across chains while maintaining cryptographic security guarantees.
How Lock-and-Mint Bridges Work
Most bridges use a lock-and-mint mechanism. Here's the five-step process:
Step 1: Deposit and lock
You initiate a bridge transfer by depositing your native asset into a smart contract on the source blockchain. When bridging 1 ETH from Ethereum to Base, you send ETH to the bridge contract's address on Ethereum. This contract acts as escrow, removing the ETH from general circulation.
The bridge generates cryptographic proof of your deposit and broadcasts notification to the destination chain's bridge contract.
Step 2: Verification
Validators or protocol mechanisms verify that your deposit is legitimate by checking the source chain's proof. Verification methods differ by bridge type:
Canonical rollup bridges (official Layer 2 bridges) inherit verification directly from Layer 1 consensus. When you bridge to Base using the official Base bridge, Ethereum's validator set verifies the transaction as part of normal consensus.
Third-party bridges may use multisignature committees, oracle networks, or light client proofs to verify deposits independently.
Step 3: Minting on destination
Once verified, the destination chain's bridge contract automatically mints an equivalent amount of wrapped tokens. Your 1 ETH locked on Ethereum triggers 1 WETH minted on Base.
These wrapped tokens have a different contract address than native assets but function identically within the destination chain's ecosystem. You can swap them on DEXs, deposit them into lending protocols, or transfer them to other wallets.
Step 4: Using wrapped assets
The wrapped tokens appear in your wallet on the destination chain. This is the moment most people breathe again. You now control assets on Base that represent your locked ETH on Ethereum.
Step 5: Returning assets (burn and release)
When you want to return your assets to the original chain, you initiate a redemption. You burn the wrapped tokens (permanently remove them from supply) on the destination chain. Burning here is a good thing. You are destroying the claim token on the destination chain so that the original asset on the source chain can be released back to you. This triggers a proof message back to the source chain.
The source chain's bridge contract verifies the burn proof, then unlocks and releases your original asset to your wallet address.
This round-trip maintains perfect 1:1 parity. Every wrapped token minted has a corresponding locked native asset. Every burned wrapped token releases a native asset.
Native vs Third-Party Bridges
Not all bridges use identical security models. Understanding the difference between canonical and third-party bridges helps you assess risk.
Canonical rollup bridges
These are official bridges operated by Layer 2 protocols themselves. The Base bridge, Optimism bridge, and Arbitrum bridge are canonical bridges.
Canonical bridges inherit security directly from Layer 1 consensus. When you use the Base bridge, your transaction's validity is verified by Ethereum's full validator set during normal consensus operations. No additional trust assumptions are required beyond trusting Ethereum itself.
This makes canonical bridges the highest-security option for Layer 2 bridging. However, they come with trade-offs. Canonical bridges for Optimistic Rollups (Base, Arbitrum, Optimism) impose a 7-day withdrawal delay when moving assets back to Ethereum mainnet. This challenge period allows fraud provers to dispute invalid state transitions before funds are released.
Third-party bridges
These are general-purpose bridges built by independent teams to connect multiple chains. Examples include Stargate (liquidity pool model) and LayerZero-based bridges.
Third-party bridges don't inherit Layer 1 security directly. They use alternative verification methods:
- Multisig committees where a group of signers collectively approve transfers
- Oracle networks that relay cross-chain messages through decentralized validator sets
- Light clients that verify blockchain state using cryptographic proofs without running full nodes
Each model introduces different trust assumptions. A multisig bridge requires trusting that committee members won't collude to steal funds. An oracle bridge requires trusting that validators honestly report cross-chain state.
Third-party bridges offer advantages: they connect chains that don't have canonical bridges, support faster transfers, and often integrate multiple chains in a single interface. These are the ones you often see embedded directly into wallets or DEX user interfaces. They are convenient, and many of them are battle tested, but you are trusting an extra layer of logic and people in the middle. They require deeper research into specific security models before moving significant value.
| Dimension | Canonical Rollup Bridge | Third-Party Bridge |
|---|---|---|
| Security Model | Inherits from L1 consensus | Multisig, oracles, or light clients |
| Withdrawal Speed | 7 days (Optimistic Rollups) | Minutes to hours |
| Cost | Gas only (low on L2) | Gas + relayer fee (0.01–0.5%) |
| Trust Assumptions | Trust Layer 1 consensus | Trust committee or oracle validators |
| Best For | Layer 2 to/from Ethereum | Cross-chain transfers where canonical unavailable |
Wrapped Assets Explained
When you bridge assets, you receive wrapped versions on the destination chain. Understanding wrapped assets prevents common mistakes.
Why wrapped tokens exist
Native ETH on Ethereum has a specific contract standard (ERC-20 compatible through WETH wrapper). Native ETH on Base uses the same interface but has a completely different contract address. These are two distinct tokens that happen to maintain a 1:1 value relationship through the bridge.
The wrapped token on the destination chain is a new token issued by the bridge contract. It represents your claim to retrieve the locked native asset, but it's not the same token.
Contract addresses differ
This is critical for verification. Native USDC on Ethereum has contract address 0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48. Native USDC on Base has a different address entirely. If someone sends you a token claiming to be USDC but the contract address doesn't match official documentation, it's a fake token.
Always verify contract addresses on official protocol documentation or block explorers before transacting significant value. Screenshot the official address and literally compare it character by character with what your wallet shows. It feels tedious, but it is still easier than trying to recover funds from a wrong token.
The USDC vs USDC.e example
Circle (USDC's issuer) historically launched USDC natively only on select chains. On other chains, third-party bridges wrapped USDC, creating derivatives like USDC.e (Arbitrum) or USDbC (Base, before native expansion).
In 2024, Circle began issuing native USDC directly on multiple chains. This created a migration period where both wrapped (USDC.e) and native (USDC) versions existed simultaneously. Wrapped versions traded at slight discounts as liquidity shifted to native tokens.
In plain language, the market slowly decided that the "real" USDC on these chains was the one issued directly by Circle, not the wrapped versions, so the wrapped coins started trading at a small discount.
The lesson: native tokens issued directly by the protocol are more reliable than wrapped versions created by third-party bridges. When choosing which version of a token to hold, check whether the issuer offers native alternatives.
Depeg risk
Wrapped tokens maintain 1:1 value with their underlying assets through arbitrage. If wrapped ETH on Base trades at $2,500 while native ETH on Ethereum trades at $2,600, arbitrageurs would bridge ETH to Base, sell it, bridge back, and pocket the difference until prices equalize.
This mechanism works as long as the bridge functions properly and users trust its reserves. During bridge outages, security incidents, or loss of confidence, wrapped tokens can depeg. If users believe a bridge's reserves are insufficient to back all wrapped tokens, wrapped tokens may trade below parity.
Fees, Finality, and Speed
Bridge transfers involve costs and delays that differ from standard wallet-to-wallet transactions.
Fee structure
Bridging incurs multiple fees:
- Source chain gas to execute the deposit transaction on the source blockchain
- Destination chain gas to mint wrapped tokens on the destination blockchain
- Protocol fees charged by some third-party bridges (typically 0.01–0.5% of transfer amount)
- Relayer fees paid to validators or nodes that relay messages between chains
Canonical rollup bridges typically charge only gas on both sides with no additional protocol fees. Layer 2 gas is 50–100x cheaper than Ethereum mainnet, making Layer 2 bridging economically attractive despite the additional step.
Finality and withdrawal periods
Finality refers to when a transaction is considered irreversible. For Layer 2 withdrawals back to Ethereum, finality is delayed to allow security mechanisms to operate.
Optimistic Rollups (Base, Arbitrum, Optimism) use a 7-day challenge period for mainnet withdrawals. During this window, fraud provers can submit proof that a withdrawal is invalid. Only after the challenge period expires without disputes can users claim their assets on Ethereum.
Waiting seven days to get your mainnet ETH back can feel painful, especially if you are used to instant swaps. The delay is not a bug though, it is the price you pay for being able to challenge fraud before money leaves the bridge.
ZK Rollups (StarkNet, zkSync) generate cryptographic proofs of transaction validity, enabling faster withdrawals (minutes to hours instead of days). However, ZK proof generation is computationally expensive, so fees may be higher.
Speed comparison
- Layer 2 deposits (Ethereum to Base): 5–15 minutes
- Layer 2 withdrawals (Base to Ethereum): 7+ days
- Third-party bridge transfers: Minutes to hours
- Liquidity pool bridge swaps: Near-instant execution, variable settlement time
Plan ahead when bridging significant value. If you know you will need mainnet liquidity on a specific date, do not start a seven day withdrawal the night before. Consider keeping emergency liquidity on mainnet or using fast bridges (with higher trust assumptions) for time-sensitive transfers.
Security Models and Trust Assumptions
Every bridge makes security trade-offs. Understanding these helps you assess risk appropriately.
Layer 1 consensus inheritance (canonical bridges)
Canonical rollup bridges inherit security from Ethereum's validator set. Your bridge transaction's validity is verified through the same consensus process that secures all Ethereum transactions.
This is the strongest security model available for Layer 2 bridging. The only way for your bridged assets to be stolen is if Ethereum itself is compromised, which would represent a systemic failure affecting all Ethereum users.
Multisignature bridges
Some bridges are controlled by multisig committees. A group of signers (often 5–15 individuals or organizations) collectively control the bridge's smart contracts. Minting wrapped tokens or releasing locked assets requires a threshold of signatures (e.g., 4 of 7 signers).
Multisigs introduce centralization risk. If enough signers collude, they could mint unauthorized wrapped tokens or steal locked assets. The flip side is that some of the most widely used DeFi protocols also rely on multisigs, so the pattern itself is not automatically bad. What matters is who the signers are, how many there are, and how transparent the setup is. Multisigs composed of reputable organizations with public identities provide social accountability.
Oracle-based bridges
Oracle networks relay cross-chain messages by having decentralized validators observe source chain events and vote on their validity. Once consensus is reached, the destination chain accepts the message and mints tokens.
Oracle bridges decentralize verification across independent validators, reducing single points of failure. However, they introduce oracle risk: if validators are compromised or economically incentivized to report false information, the bridge can be exploited.
Light client bridges
Light clients verify blockchain state using cryptographic proofs without running full nodes. A light client on Base can verify Ethereum state by checking block headers and Merkle proofs, confirming that a deposit transaction occurred on Ethereum without trusting external parties.
Light client bridges are technically complex but offer strong security without relying on external trust. They're closer to canonical bridges in security profile but work for chains that don't have direct consensus inheritance.
Choosing based on value
Your risk tolerance should scale with value:
- $10–$100 transfers: Canonical or widely-used third-party bridges are both acceptable
- $100–$10,000 transfers: Prefer canonical bridges or audited third-party bridges with high total value locked (TVL indicates community trust)
- $10,000+ transfers: Use canonical bridges exclusively, verify contract addresses multiple times, and consider splitting across multiple transactions
Real-World Example: Bridging ETH from Ethereum to Base
Here's the step-by-step process using the official Base bridge.
Give yourself time for this first bridge. Do not start it three minutes before you need to catch a flight or jump into a meeting.
Step 1: Prepare your wallet
Ensure you have ETH on Ethereum mainnet and additional ETH for gas fees (keep ~$20 for deposit gas). Connect your crypto wallet to Base's official bridge interface at bridge.base.org.
Step 2: Select asset and amount
Choose ETH as the asset to bridge. Enter the amount you want to transfer. The interface displays estimated gas fees on both Ethereum and Base (typically $5–$15 on Ethereum, $0.01–$0.50 on Base depending on congestion).
Step 3: Approve and confirm
Click "Approve" to grant the bridge contract permission to access your ETH. This is a separate transaction requiring gas. Wait for approval confirmation on Ethereum (15–30 seconds).
Then click "Deposit" to execute the bridge transfer. Your wallet prompts you to sign the transaction. Confirm and pay gas fees.
Step 4: Wait for confirmation
The bridge displays transaction status. After Ethereum confirms your deposit (15 seconds to 2 minutes), the bridge begins processing.
Within 5–15 minutes, WETH appears in your wallet on Base. You can verify by switching your wallet network to Base and checking your balance.
Step 5: Verify on block explorer
Open Basescan (Base's block explorer) and paste your wallet address. You should see an incoming transaction from the Base bridge contract. Click the transaction to view details.
Verify the contract address of the received token matches official WETH documentation. Compare the amount to what you deposited.
How to Verify a Bridge Transfer
Block explorers are your verification tool. Here's how to read them:
On the source chain (Ethereum)
- Open Etherscan and search your wallet address
- Find the bridge deposit transaction (sent to the bridge contract address)
- Verify the "To" address matches the official bridge contract from documentation
- Check the transaction status shows "Success"
- Note the exact amount sent
On the destination chain (Base)
- Open Basescan and search your wallet address
- Find the incoming transaction from the Base bridge contract
- Click the transaction to view token transfer details
- Verify the token contract address matches official documentation (not a fake token)
- Confirm the amount received equals what you sent (minus fees if applicable)
Common verification mistakes
Users often confuse transaction hashes between chains. Your deposit transaction on Ethereum has a different transaction hash than the mint transaction on Base. They're separate events. Don't expect the same hash to appear on both explorers.
Always verify contract addresses. Scammers create fake tokens with similar names (WETH vs wETH, USDC vs uSDC) to trick users into accepting worthless tokens. Compare the full contract address character by character.
Risk Checklist and How to Reduce It
Bridges introduce risks beyond standard wallet transactions. Here's how to mitigate them:
Contract risk
Bridges rely on smart contracts that may contain bugs or vulnerabilities. Even audited contracts can have undiscovered exploits.
What to do about it: Use canonical bridges for Layer 2 transfers when possible. For third-party bridges, check if the protocol has been audited by reputable firms (Trail of Bits, Consensys Diligence, OpenZeppelin). Look for bridges with high TVL (indicates community trust and battle-testing). Start with small test amounts before bridging significant value.
Phishing risk
Fake bridge sites appear in search results and social media ads, prompting users to connect wallets and approve malicious contracts.
What to do about it: Bookmark official bridge URLs. Never click bridge links from social media or search ads. Verify the domain is correct (bridge.base.org, not bridge-base.org or base-bridge.com). Check HTTPS and the site's security certificate. If prompted to approve an unfamiliar contract, stop immediately and verify the contract address on official documentation.
Wrong network risk
Sending assets to an address on the wrong network makes recovery extremely difficult or impossible.
What to do about it: Always verify your wallet is set to the correct destination network before initiating transfers. When bridging to Base, confirm your wallet displays "Base" as the active network. Double-check the destination address is correct. Never bridge to exchange deposit addresses unless the exchange explicitly supports deposits from that specific chain.
Fake token risk
Bridges can mint tokens with any name and symbol. Scammers create fake wrapped tokens to trick users.
What to do about it: After bridging, verify the token contract address on a block explorer matches official documentation. If you receive a token you didn't expect, don't interact with it. Never approve unknown tokens for trading or swapping. If something feels off or the token name looks slightly wrong, stop. It is better to be paranoid here than polite.
Depeg risk
Wrapped tokens can trade below 1:1 parity during bridge outages or loss of confidence.
What to do about it: Understand which tokens are wrapped vs native. Prefer native tokens from official issuers (native USDC from Circle, native ETH on Ethereum). If holding wrapped tokens long-term, monitor price parity and bridge health. During bridge incidents, avoid panic selling at discounts.
Transaction irreversibility
Bridge transactions cannot be reversed once confirmed. If you send to the wrong address or use the wrong bridge, recovery is difficult.
What to do about it: Test with minimum amounts first. Triple-check addresses before confirming. Use address book features in wallets to save verified addresses. If uncertain, ask in official community channels before proceeding.
Choosing the Right Bridge: A Decision Framework
Different use cases call for different bridges. Here's how to choose:
For Layer 2 onboarding (Ethereum to Base, Arbitrum, Optimism):
Use the canonical rollup bridge. It's the safest option and charges only gas fees. Accept the 7-day withdrawal period as the cost of maximum security.
For cross-chain transfers between Layer 2s:
Third-party bridges like Stargate work well. Verify the bridge is widely used and audited. Compare fees across options. Accept slightly higher trust assumptions in exchange for convenience.
For time-sensitive transfers:
Fast bridges or liquidity pool models (Stargate, Uniswap X) execute within minutes to hours. Understand you're paying for speed through higher fees and accepting different security models.
For high-value transfers ($10,000+):
Always use canonical bridges when available. If you must use a third-party bridge, split transfers across multiple transactions to reduce single-point failure risk. Verify every step manually on block explorers.
For experimental chains or new Layer 2s:
Research bridge adoption carefully. Newly launched chains may have immature bridge infrastructure. Wait for bridge audits, test with minimal amounts, and monitor community feedback before moving significant liquidity.
When multiple options exist:
Compare total cost (gas + fees), speed, security model, and user reviews. Use bridges with high TVL as a trust signal. Check official protocol recommendations (many protocols explicitly recommend specific bridges).
Troubleshooting and Recovery
Common bridge issues and solutions:
Stuck transfers
If your bridge transfer doesn't complete within the expected timeframe, first verify both source and destination transactions on block explorers. If the deposit succeeded but minting didn't occur, check the bridge's status page for outages. Most bridges have Discord or Telegram support where you can submit your transaction hash for assistance.
Missing tokens
If wrapped tokens don't appear in your wallet after successful bridging, manually add the token contract address to your wallet. Wallets don't always auto-detect new tokens. Find the official contract address on the bridge's documentation and import it.
Failed transactions
If a bridge transaction fails, your assets typically remain in your wallet (no funds lost). Common causes include insufficient gas, wrong network, or bridge contract issues. Check the transaction failure reason on the block explorer. Usually, retrying with higher gas resolves the issue.
Recovery paths
Most reputable bridges maintain support channels (Discord, Telegram, email). Submit your transaction hash, wallet address, and clear description of the issue. Response times vary by bridge, but most resolve issues within 24–72 hours.
For canonical bridges, you can interact directly with bridge contracts if support is unavailable. This requires technical knowledge (using Etherscan's contract interaction interface). Only attempt if you understand smart contract calls.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are crypto bridges safe to use?
Crypto bridges are as safe as their security model and implementation. Canonical rollup bridges inherit security from Ethereum, which is about as strong as it gets in practice. Third-party bridges can also be safe if they are audited, battle tested, and widely used, but they add extra trust assumptions on top. The safest approach is to use canonical bridges for significant amounts, verify all contract addresses, and start with small test transactions.
What is the safest way to bridge ETH from Ethereum to Base?
For most people the safest path is to use the official Base bridge at bridge.base.org. Always verify the URL before connecting your wallet, test with a small amount first (around $10–$50), and then follow the verification checklist in this article for checking contract addresses and transactions on Etherscan and Basescan. The official Base bridge inherits Ethereum's security, making it the most secure option available.
Why is my bridged token not showing up in my wallet?
In many cases the token is there, but your wallet is not displaying it yet. You usually need to add the token contract address manually, which you can find in the bridge documentation or on a block explorer like Basescan or Arbiscan. Once you add the correct contract address to your wallet, the balance appears. If the token still does not show after adding the contract, check the block explorer to confirm the transaction completed successfully.
Why does bridging from Base back to Ethereum take seven days?
Base is an Optimistic Rollup. The seven day withdrawal period gives fraud provers time to challenge invalid withdrawals. It is a security window rather than a technical limit. During this period, anyone can submit proof that a withdrawal is fraudulent, which protects users from malicious operators. If you need faster withdrawals, you can use third-party fast bridges, but these come with different security assumptions and typically charge higher fees.
What is the difference between canonical and third-party bridges?
Canonical bridges are the official bridges built by Layer 2 protocols themselves (like the Base bridge or Arbitrum bridge). They inherit security directly from Ethereum's validator set, making them the most secure option. Third-party bridges are built by independent teams to connect multiple chains. They use alternative security models like multisigs or oracles, which add extra trust assumptions but often provide faster transfers and connect chains that do not have canonical bridges.
The Road Ahead
Bridge infrastructure is evolving rapidly:
Native token expansion
Major token issuers like Circle (USDC), MakerDAO (DAI), and Lido (stETH) are moving toward native issuance on multiple chains simultaneously rather than relying on third-party bridges. This reduces bridge dependency and eliminates wrapped token risks. Expect more tokens to follow this pattern.
Intent-based routing
New bridge designs like Uniswap X enable intent-based bridging. Users specify an intent ("I want 1 ETH on Base") and the protocol optimally routes the transaction across available bridges, liquidity pools, and chains. This abstraction makes bridging feel more like a single seamless action rather than multiple manual steps.
Interoperability standards
Protocols are developing standardized cross-chain messaging standards to reduce bridge fragmentation. As these mature, bridging may become as simple as selecting a destination in your wallet without thinking about bridge protocols explicitly.
Bridge infrastructure will continue improving security, speed, and user experience. However, the fundamental mechanisms and risk considerations remain relevant. Users who understand bridges today are well-positioned to navigate future iterations.
Key Takeaways
Bridges enable assets to move between blockchains by locking native assets on a source chain and minting equivalent wrapped tokens on a destination chain.
Canonical rollup bridges (official Layer 2 bridges) offer the strongest security by inheriting Layer 1 consensus. Third-party bridges provide flexibility but require research into specific security models.
Always verify token contract addresses on block explorers after bridging. Wrapped tokens have different addresses than native tokens, and fake tokens are common.
Bridge transfers involve gas on both chains plus optional protocol fees. Layer 2 withdrawals to Ethereum have 7-day finality delays for Optimistic Rollups.
Choose bridges based on transfer value: canonical bridges for significant amounts, audited third-party bridges for cross-chain transfers, fast bridges for time-sensitive needs.
Reusable bridging checklist:
- Verify bridge URL matches official documentation (bookmark it)
- Confirm wallet is set to correct source and destination networks
- Check token contract address on destination chain after bridging
- Start with small test amount ($10–$50) before bridging larger value
- Review bridge's security model and audit status
- Account for total fees (gas on both chains + protocol fees)
- Understand withdrawal timelines (7 days for Optimistic Rollup exits)
- Save transaction hashes from both source and destination chains
- Monitor transaction status on block explorers until complete
Bridges are essential infrastructure for multi-chain Web3. Understanding how they work and following safety practices enables you to move assets confidently across the ecosystem.