DeFi & governance
Bridges and wrapped assets
Moving value between chains adds a verification and custody relationship.
Research articles and reference entries are published in English. Navigation is available in seven languages.
In this article
A bridge must establish that an event on one system justifies an action on another. Designs can depend on proofs, validators, custodians or committees. The receiving asset may be a representation whose value depends on the integrity of that route.
Inspect both sides
Identify what is locked or burned, what is minted or released, who can authorise the action and how a user redeems. Check the exact destination asset and whether its backing depends on a third party. An authentic ticker on one chain does not automatically authenticate a representation on another.
Bridge and application risks accumulate. A sound destination chain cannot replace missing collateral at the source. An upgrade or compromised authority can affect the route even if neither base-chain consensus fails.
Compare canonical and third-party routes using their actual assumptions and withdrawal conditions. A quicker transfer may introduce a liquidity intermediary. The Ronin case demonstrates why bridge-related security deserves its own investigation rather than a general claim that a blockchain was hacked.
Sources
Research checked 5 September 2026. Historical cases retain the date and legal status of the cited record.