How Token Bridges Handle Liquidity in Crypto Markets

Sandro Brasher

Blog

October 2, 2025

26 Views

Over $50 billion moves across blockchain networks monthly through specialized infrastructure. This amount surpasses the GDP of many countries. It flows silently between different crypto ecosystems.

I assumed each blockchain operated alone. Then I saw how token bridges handle liquidity. These systems connect our fragmented crypto world like invisible highways.

The main issue isn’t just moving assets. It’s ensuring enough capital is ready on both sides of transfers. Without good management, these pathways could quickly run dry.

Cross-chain liquidity solutions use various methods to keep funds flowing. These include locked collateral pools and complex market-making algorithms. Some bridges rely on validators staking their own funds.

Others use capital supplied by users. These mechanisms affect which assets you can move. They also determine transfer speed and fees.

Learning about blockchain interoperability changed my view of crypto. It revealed how deeply connected different networks are. This knowledge helps traders and builders make smarter decisions.

Key Takeaways

• Token bridges facilitate over $50 billion in monthly cross-chain transfers across crypto markets
• Liquidity management relies on collateral pools, validator stakes, and market-making algorithms
• Interoperability protocols connect isolated blockchain networks through specialized infrastructure
• Transfer speed and costs depend directly on how bridges provision capital on each chain
• Understanding these mechanisms helps traders and builders make informed decisions about crypto asset transfers
• Real-world liquidity challenges reveal the practical limitations of current cross-chain technology

Introduction to Token Bridges and Liquidity

Blockchains don’t naturally communicate. Each one operates independently with its own rules, tokens, and transaction methods. This isolation created a problem as the crypto market expanded.

Decentralized finance infrastructure enables movement between these isolated networks. The quality of bridges varies based on how well they handle liquidity. Some transfers complete quickly, while others leave you waiting.

Blockchain asset interoperability is crucial for modern crypto markets. Without bridges, you’d need separate wallets and strategies for each blockchain. This fragments the market and reduces efficiency.

What Token Bridges Actually Do

Token bridge protocols facilitate cross-chain asset transfers between different blockchain networks. They act like translation services, converting assets from one blockchain’s language to another’s.

Bridges don’t physically move tokens. Instead, they lock your original token and mint an equivalent version on the destination chain. It’s similar to making a bank deposit in one country and receiving credit in another.

Cross-chain bridges use various technical architectures. Some employ relay chains as intermediaries to verify transactions across networks. Others use validator networks that independently confirm transactions on both chains.

Validators stake their own assets as collateral, creating incentives for honest behavior. Understanding a bridge’s architecture helps predict its reliability and cost structure.

Why Liquidity Makes or Breaks Bridges

Liquidity determines if a bridge works smoothly or becomes a bottleneck. In crypto markets, liquidity refers to the availability of assets ready for immediate exchange. Insufficient liquidity leads to longer wait times and higher fees.

Checking liquidity depth before bridging assets is crucial. Low liquidity can cause transactions to sit pending for hours. This can result in missed opportunities and frustration.

Liquidity issues create price differences for the same asset on different chains. These gaps can exceed 5-10% during high-demand periods. Regular users pay a hidden tax through unfavorable exchange rates.

Cross-chain transfers rely on liquidity providers who deposit assets on both sides of a bridge. They earn fees from each transaction. However, high transaction volume can deplete liquidity faster than providers can replenish it.

Data shows that transaction success rates drop by 40-60% when liquidity falls below critical thresholds. Bridges failing to solve this problem lose users to competitors with better liquidity management.

The Canton Network shows how institutional-grade bridges tackle this challenge. They connect established financial institutions with committed liquidity provisions. This reduces fragmentation and ensures consistent asset availability across networks.

Mechanisms of Liquidity in Token Bridges

Token bridges use complex systems to keep liquidity flowing. These systems affect transfer speed, user fees, and token availability. I’ve studied these systems and found some approaches truly impressive.

The main challenge is enabling instant token transfers between non-communicating blockchains. Different bridges have created unique solutions with their own pros and cons.

Atomic Swaps and Liquidity Pools

Two main mechanisms power most decentralized bridge systems today. Atomic swaps use peer-to-peer exchanges where transactions either complete or fail entirely. This makes the system trustless by design.

Atomic swaps use hash time-locked contracts, a type of smart contract. These ensure both parties fulfill their obligations within a set time. If one transaction fails, the other automatically reverses.

However, atomic swaps require both parties to be online simultaneously. This limits scalability and makes them impractical for high-volume bridges.

Liquidity pools offer a more practical solution. They use pre-funded token reserves on both sides of the bridge. You deposit tokens on one side and receive equivalent tokens from the other side.

This process completes in minutes, without waiting for a trading partner. Liquidity providers fund these pools and earn fees from each transaction.

Bridges implement smart contract liquidity differently. Some use locked models where original tokens stay on the source chain. Others use dynamic systems that adapt to demand.

Cross-Chain Transactions Explained

Understanding the cross-chain transfer process reveals how these mechanisms work. Breaking down the transaction flow makes the complexity more manageable.

The process typically involves several stages:

• Initiation: User submits a bridge request through a wallet interface, specifying source chain, destination chain, and token amount
• Locking or Burning: Source chain smart contract either locks the original tokens in a vault or burns them completely
• Validation: Bridge validators (nodes running the bridge protocol) confirm the transaction occurred on the source chain
• Consensus: Multiple validators must agree on transaction details before proceeding—this prevents fraud
• Minting or Release: Destination chain smart contract either mints new wrapped tokens or releases existing tokens from liquidity reserves
• Delivery: Tokens arrive in the user’s destination wallet

The destination side must have enough liquidity throughout this process. If not, the transaction may fail, get queued, or experience delays.

Modern bridge mechanisms have evolved beyond basic lock-and-mint models. Alpaca’s Instant Tokenization Network allows 24/7 in-kind minting and redemption of assets.

Institutions can tokenize entire portfolios instantly with one API call. The reverse process works smoothly too, eliminating traditional settlement delays.

Bridge validators are crucial for transaction security. They stake tokens as collateral, creating incentives for honest behavior. Fraudulent approvals result in lost stakes.

The number of validators needed for consensus varies by bridge. More validators mean better security but slower confirmations.

Smart contract liquidity management goes beyond holding token reserves. Advanced bridges use dynamic fees based on pool balance ratios.

This self-regulating system maintains liquidity in normal conditions. However, extreme volatility can still overwhelm well-designed systems, leading to paused operations or withdrawal limits.

Major Token Bridges and Their Liquidity Strategies

Different bridges handle liquidity in unique ways. Each blockchain’s architecture influences how its bridge manages capital flow. I’ve used several major bridge protocol implementations over the years.

Three bridges show distinct approaches: Ethereum’s Polygon Bridge, Binance Smart Chain’s PancakeSwap, and Avalanche’s native infrastructure. Each has strategies matching its blockchain characteristics.

These cross-chain liquidity solutions shape market behavior. The bridge’s incentive structures determine if liquidity flows smoothly or gets stuck.

Proof-of-Stake Security and Wrapped Assets

Ethereum’s Polygon Bridge uses a proof-of-stake validator network. It secures asset transfers between the two chains. Your original assets get locked in a smart contract on Ethereum.

The bridge mints equivalent wrapped tokens on Polygon. This wrapped tokens liquidity model creates an interesting dynamic. Your ETH becomes wrapped ETH (WETH) on Polygon, keeping a 1:1 peg.

Validators who stake MATIC tokens provide security. They face slashing if they act maliciously. Polygon’s approach includes yield farming programs that incentivize liquidity providers.

You can stake bridged assets in Polygon DeFi protocols and earn rewards. This keeps liquidity flowing both ways. The validator set processes 2-3 second block times. Bridge transactions confirm faster than on Ethereum mainnet.

I’ve completed transfers in under five minutes during normal conditions. Polygon’s liquidity depth has grown substantially. Total value locked exceeded $1 billion in 2023 across major DeFi protocols.

Automated Market Makers and Token Incentives

PancakeSwap on Binance Smart Chain is a decentralized exchange bridge with AMM functionality. Liquidity comes from automated market maker pools where users provide token pairs.

When bridging to BSC, you often swap into these liquidity pools. LPs deposit equal values of two tokens into a pool. Traders swap against this pool, paying fees distributed to liquidity providers.

PancakeSwap incentivizes LPs with CAKE token rewards. This creates a self-reinforcing ecosystem where providing liquidity becomes profitable. BSC decentralized exchange bridges maintain better liquidity during high-volatility periods.

Trading volumes on PancakeSwap regularly exceed $500 million daily. This provides deep liquidity for most major token pairs. Transaction fees on BSC average around $0.20-0.50, much lower than Ethereum.

This cost advantage attracts users making frequent smaller transactions. Wrapped tokens liquidity on BSC mirrors assets from other chains. Wrapped Bitcoin, Ethereum, and stablecoins all maintain active pools.

Subnet Architecture and Institutional Market Making

Avalanche’s bridge solution uses subnets and native infrastructure. It operates differently from the previous examples. Wrapped tokens maintain liquidity through institutional market makers and protocol-owned liquidity.

The subnet architecture allows custom blockchains to connect to Avalanche’s main network. These subnets maintain their own validator sets. Avalanche’s consensus mechanism enables sub-second finality.

This means liquidity doesn’t get tied up waiting for confirmations. When bridging to Avalanche, transactions complete in 1-2 seconds. This speed advantage matters for traders needing immediate capital access.

Avalanche’s liquidity partly comes from institutional partnerships. Market makers provide depth for major trading pairs. This ensures minimal slippage even for larger transactions.

I’ve bridged amounts over $10,000 with under 0.5% slippage. This is remarkable compared to smaller chains. Avalanche also implements bridge protocol implementations connecting to multiple chains, not just Ethereum.

There’s no single “correct” way to handle liquidity. The right approach depends on blockchain architecture, user base, and protocol incentives.

Polygon optimizes for Ethereum compatibility and DeFi ecosystem depth. PancakeSwap prioritizes low costs and trading volume. Avalanche focuses on speed and institutional-grade liquidity.

These cross-chain liquidity solutions adapt to different use cases. Traders value speed and low fees. DeFi users care about yield opportunities. Institutions need deep liquidity and minimal slippage.

Understanding these strategies helps you choose the right bridge. The liquidity mechanics directly impact your costs, speed, and overall cross-chain asset movement experience.

How Liquidity is Measured in Token Bridges

I developed a framework for evaluating bridge liquidity after losing time and money. Digging deeper into how token bridges handle liquidity revealed the truth behind promotional numbers. This approach has proven more effective than relying on surface-level metrics.

Checking a bridge’s homepage isn’t enough to understand its true capabilities. Several interconnected metrics are needed to assess multi-chain transaction processing efficiency. These metrics provide a complete picture of a bridge’s performance.

Key Metrics for Evaluating Liquidity

Total Value Locked (TVL) measures capital in a bridge’s liquidity pools. Higher TVL often means deeper liquidity and less slippage. However, TVL alone doesn’t tell the whole story about a bridge’s efficiency.

TVL can be misleading if liquidity is concentrated in narrow price ranges. This can lead to significant slippage on larger trades. That’s why checking liquidity depth charts is crucial before making substantial transfers.

The utilization rate shows the percentage of available liquidity being used. Bridges running at 90% utilization or higher often experience delays. This can lead to transactions being pending for hours during high-demand periods.

High utilization rates leave little buffer for sudden demand spikes. This can create bottlenecks that freeze assets in transit. The turnover ratio provides insight into liquidity efficiency by comparing transaction volume to TVL.

Here’s how I compare the key liquidity metrics when evaluating any bridge:

The balance between transaction volume and available liquidity is crucial. A high ratio suggests strain on resources. A low ratio may indicate inefficiency or lack of trust in the bridge.

Statistical Insights on Liquidity Trends

Multi-chain transaction processing has grown rapidly in the past two years. Cross-chain bridge volumes have increased by 300-400% year-over-year. This growth is driven by new chains and increased demand for interoperability.

Liquidity tends to concentrate on bridges connecting to Ethereum. Ethereum remains the liquidity hub of crypto. Bridges linking to it attract more capital than those serving smaller ecosystems.

In 2023, Ethereum-connected bridges maintained TVL figures 5-7 times higher than alternative layer-1 chains. This concentration creates a significant liquidity advantage for established bridges. It’s challenging for newer bridges to overcome this gap.

Security incidents have a lasting impact on liquidity metrics. After major hacks, TVL typically drops 40-60% within days. Some bridges never recover their pre-incident liquidity levels. This trend reveals which bridges maintain user trust through strong security practices.

Utilization rates vary based on chain activity. Bridges serving high-activity chains like Polygon or Arbitrum show higher rates (60-75%). Bridges connecting less active networks have lower rates (20-35%). This reflects the demand for cross-chain functionality on different networks.

Total value locked analysis shows significant consolidation among top bridges. The top three bridges control about 65% of all cross-chain liquidity. This raises questions about decentralization but also indicates where users place their confidence.

Market conditions affect bridge liquidity. Bull markets see TVL and utilization rates climb together. In bear markets, TVL declines while utilization rates often remain steady. This suggests fewer total users, but consistent demand for cross-chain functionality.

Understanding these metrics gives you an advantage when choosing bridges for your assets. It allows for more informed decisions about which platforms to trust with your transactions.

Case Studies: Successful Liquidity Management

Real-world bridge implementations offer valuable insights into liquidity management. Analyzing systems under stress provides the best education. Let’s explore two scenarios that showcase different approaches to liquidity challenges.

Learning from Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain

The 2021 DeFi boom tested token bridge protocols under extreme demand. Ethereum’s high gas fees pushed users to Binance Smart Chain in massive waves.

Bridges faced unprecedented transaction volumes. Success hinged on economic incentive design. PancakeSwap’s bridge added liquidity mining incentives when demand surged.

The results were impressive. BSC bridges saw total value locked skyrocket from millions to billions within weeks.

Performance metrics during peak usage revealed:

• Bridges with shallow liquidity experienced 5-10% slippage on moderate-sized transactions
• Well-capitalized bridges maintained sub-1% slippage even during the heaviest traffic hours
• Dynamic fee structures prevented liquidity provider exodus during volatility spikes
• Bridges that couldn’t adjust their economic models lost market share permanently

User experience varied dramatically. Poorly capitalized bridges could cost $500-1,000 in slippage for a $10,000 transaction. Liquid bridges might charge under $100 total.

Institutional Approaches and Market Evolution

Institutional bridge adoption patterns differ greatly from retail DeFi scenarios. The Canton Network shows how traditional financial institutions need blockchain interoperability.

Institutions prioritize settlement finality, counterparty risk management, and audit trails. They demand guaranteed settlement and regulatory compliance, even at higher costs.

Alpaca’s Instant Tokenization Network took a unique approach. They secured adoption from major partners including:

This structure shows how institutional-grade token bridge protocols manage liquidity. Professional market makers commit capital for fee revenue. They’re running actual businesses, not farming tokens.

The infrastructure supports 24/7 instant in-kind minting and redemption. This meets institutional requirements for treating tokenized assets like traditional securities.

Market response has been measured but significant. Galaxy Research projects tokenized stock markets could reach $10 trillion by 2030.

Successful liquidity management goes beyond technology. Ethereum-BSC bridges thrived through economic adaptation. Institutional bridges succeed via market maker partnerships and regulatory compliance.

Both models serve different user bases with unique needs. Understanding which approach fits which scenario is crucial for evaluating real-world bridge implementations.

Tools for Monitoring Liquidity in Token Bridges

Effective liquidity monitoring needs a comprehensive toolkit. The right tools can save you from costly mistakes. They help track liquidity pooling and verify safety before large transfers.

You don’t need every tool available. The right combination gives broad market insights and detailed transaction information. Understanding each tool’s specialty is crucial.

Liquidity Analytics Platforms

DeFi Llama’s bridges section is essential for checking bridge liquidity health. It shows Total Value Locked (TVL) data across major bridges. You can see which protocols gain or lose liquidity.

The interface is simple to use. It displays historical trends and compares bridges side-by-side. You can also explore specific blockchain networks in detail.

Before using a new bridge, check its TVL trend on DeFi Llama. A declining liquidity over weeks might signal problems.

Dune Analytics offers deeper analysis with community-built dashboards. It tracks metrics like utilization rates and fee revenue breakdowns. The platform also shows largest transactions and liquidity provider profitability.

Dune’s value lies in its crowdsourced verification model. Multiple analysts create dashboards for the same bridges. This system ensures accuracy and reliability.

These dashboards help spot capacity issues early. For example, I noticed high utilization rates on an Ethereum bridge. This allowed me to act before delays became widespread.

“The difference between informed bridge users and those who gamble with their assets often comes down to the monitoring tools they employ before executing transactions.”

For technical users, blockchain explorers like Etherscan and BscScan show bridge contract balances. This method provides unfiltered data straight from the source.

To use them, search for the bridge’s contract address. Check the token balances to verify the claimed liquidity.

Popular DEX Tools

DEXTools and GeckoTerminal are useful for DEX-based bridges. They show real-time liquidity depth charts. These charts help estimate slippage before transactions.

For example, check the depth chart before bridging $10,000 of tokens. It shows how your transaction might impact the price. Shallow liquidity could lead to high slippage and losses.

DEXTools displays this information visually. GeckoTerminal offers similar features with a cleaner interface. Both show historical volume data to find the best transfer times.

Aggregation platforms like Socket and LI.FI help with complex multi-chain transactions. They compare all routes and suggest the best path for your transfer.

Socket considers liquidity depth, fees, completion times, and gas costs. LI.FI includes transaction simulation to preview bridge operations. These tools find efficient routes for obscure token pairs.

The table below compares key liquidity analytics platforms and bridge monitoring tools:

Never rely on a single data source for significant transactions. Cross-referencing multiple tools gives a complete picture. It helps identify problems that one tool might miss.

Set up alerts on platforms that offer them. Some Dune dashboards notify you when certain thresholds are crossed. These alerts provide early warnings without constant manual checking.

The monitoring landscape keeps evolving. New liquidity analytics platforms emerge regularly. Good data leads to informed decisions. Understanding these tools helps make safer, more efficient transactions.

Challenges in Managing Liquidity for Token Bridges

Balancing liquidity across multiple blockchains is incredibly complex. It’s not just a technical challenge, but a financial minefield. Mistakes can lead to massive losses in minutes.

Protocols rise and fall based on how they handle these obstacles. Problems multiply across chains instead of staying isolated. What works on Ethereum might create chaos on Avalanche or Polygon.

As more value flows through bridges, the stakes keep rising. A single misstep in liquidity management can trigger widespread failures.

Volatility and Market Fluctuations

Market swings hit bridge liquidity providers hard. Wild price changes can break mathematical models that balance liquidity. The May 2021 crash showed this clearly when Bitcoin’s value halved.

Bridges lost over 50% of their locked value in days. Providers rushed to withdraw, causing a liquidity death spiral. Less liquidity led to higher slippage, driving away users and more providers.

Impermanent loss is worse on bridges due to price movements across multiple chains. A token might stay stable on Ethereum but crash on Binance Smart Chain. This forces constant rebalancing, often at a loss.

Vampire attacks fragment liquidity across competing protocols. New bridges offer unsustainable yields, pulling capital from established ones. This makes all bridges less efficient.

The cycle is predictable. A new bridge attracts liquidity briefly. Then rewards dry up, users flee, and it’s abandoned. Damage to established bridges lingers as trust takes time to rebuild.

Security exploits pose the biggest threat to liquidity risk management. Bridge hacks have cost hundreds of millions. Each incident spreads fear across the entire ecosystem.

After major hacks, even secure bridges see providers exit. The impact lasts for months or years. Some never return, avoiding bridges despite potential returns.

Security measures add their own complications. Multi-sig wallets and time-locks increase safety but slow transactions. There’s always tension between security and speed.

Regulatory Considerations

Regulatory uncertainty is a major obstacle for bridge liquidity management. Traditional finance rules clash with decentralized bridge mechanisms. Reconciling these worlds remains challenging.

Regulatory compliance bridges face unique challenges. They must satisfy KYC and AML rules while maintaining blockchain efficiency. This balance is difficult to achieve.

For retail bridges, regulatory uncertainty makes large providers hesitant. They worry about future legal issues. U.S.-serving bridges are especially cautious about liquidity sources and user checks.

Compliance often conflicts with decentralization principles. Privacy-enabled regulatory features require complex systems. Not all bridges have resources to build these properly.

Chain-specific risks further complicate liquidity risk management. Downtime, consensus failures, or hard forks can trap liquidity. This creates losses for providers who can’t exit positions.

Managing bridge liquidity requires expertise in security, economics, regulation, and blockchain technology. As the ecosystem grows, the challenges become more complex and the stakes higher.

Predicting Future Trends in Token Bridge Liquidity

Cross-chain bridges are set to undergo major changes in the next five years. These changes will reshape how liquidity flows between blockchains. The trends are based on current technological advancements and market forces.

Token bridge evolution will impact institutional capital movement and everyday token swaps. Understanding these trends now gives you an edge in future navigation.

Expert Perspectives on Bridge Evolution

Industry experts agree on key predictions about blockchain asset interoperability. Galaxy Research projects tokenized stock markets could reach $10 trillion by 2030. This forecast suggests a complete transformation of traditional asset movement across blockchain networks.

This massive capital influx will require institutional-grade infrastructure. Platforms like Alpaca’s Instant Tokenization Network are already building the foundation for this shift. They enable professional market makers to provide wrapped tokens liquidity 24/7.

The diversity of assets coming to tokenized markets is intriguing. Real estate, commodities, and debt instruments will all need specialized bridge mechanisms. Each asset class brings unique liquidity requirements and regulatory considerations.

The intersection of traditional finance and blockchain infrastructure represents the largest capital opportunity in crypto’s history, and token bridges will serve as the critical connective tissue.

AI integration is another area of expert consensus. Machine learning algorithms could optimize liquidity provisioning in real-time. Bridges might predict demand spikes and rebalance capital automatically to prevent bottlenecks.

These AI systems could enhance security by detecting anomalous transaction patterns. This technology could pause liquidity flows automatically, preventing losses before they occur. Developers are already prototyping these systems.

Experts also agree on the need for quantum-resistant protocols. As quantum computing advances, bridges without post-quantum cryptography will become security liabilities. Forward-thinking developers are already considering these upgrades, even though the threat seems distant.

Five-Year Market Outlook

Here’s a timeline of expected changes in cross-chain bridges based on current trends:

2025-2026: Cross-chain liquidity aggregation protocols will emerge. Users will interact with meta-layers that automatically route transactions through optimal paths. These protocols will compare real-time liquidity depth, fees, and security scores across multiple bridges.

This technology exists in early forms but needs better user interfaces and security audits. Widespread adoption is expected in 18-24 months.

2026-2027: Institutional adoption will accelerate dramatically. Regulatory clarity in major jurisdictions will unlock capital currently sitting on the sidelines. This influx will concentrate in compliant, regulated bridges offering settlement finality guarantees.

This creates an interesting tension. Will decentralized ethos survive when institutional capital demands centralized oversight? The answer will shape wrapped tokens liquidity’s future.

2027-2028: AI integration becomes standard rather than experimental. Bridges will use predictive analytics to manage liquidity pools dynamically. This automation will reduce slippage and improve capital efficiency significantly.

AI-human collaboration in blockchain technology is a confident prediction. AI will handle millisecond-to-millisecond decisions that determine competitive spreads. Human oversight will still be necessary.

2028-2030: Universal bridge protocols or widely-adopted interoperability standards could reduce liquidity fragmentation. Capital could flow seamlessly across the entire crypto ecosystem without current friction.

This outcome is promising, but blockchain tribalism and competing interests might slow progress. Economic incentives for cooperation are strong, but so are proprietary advantage incentives.

A major financial crisis could accelerate these trends. It would make blockchain asset interoperability a refuge for capital seeking alternatives. This scenario could compress the five-year timeline into two or three years.

Token bridge liquidity is becoming mainstream financial infrastructure. Understanding these trends positions you to benefit from the coming transformation. Bridges that adapt to these predictions will capture most of the $10 trillion opportunity.

Frequently Asked Questions About Token Bridges

Token bridges are a hot topic in cross-chain technology. Let’s explore the key concerns and questions that often arise.

What are the biggest concerns when using bridges?

Security risks are the primary concern with token bridges. Smart contract vulnerabilities can lead to massive losses through exploits.

Custodial risks exist when intermediaries hold your assets. Even decentralized bridges face potential validator compromise.

Before bridging significant amounts, I always check for insurance options and established track records.

How do fees and speed compare?

Bridge transaction costs vary greatly. You pay fees for source chain gas, bridge protocol, and destination chain gas.

I’ve spent between $3 and $100, depending on network conditions. Speed varies by implementation.

Solana-based bridges complete transfers in seconds. Ethereum bridges take minutes due to confirmation requirements.

Do bridges improve liquidity across markets?

Bridges significantly enhance cross-chain liquidity. They allow capital to flow where it’s needed most.

When Ethereum fees spike, bridges redirect activity to cheaper alternatives. This distributes pressure across the ecosystem.

Bridges enable arbitrage, keeping prices aligned between chains. They connect isolated pools, creating a larger liquidity source.