Liquidity Network Bridges
Instead of lock-and-mint, liquidity network bridges use native asset pools on each chain connected by a messaging layer. Users swap from a pool on Chain A and receive from a pool on Chain B — no wrapped tokens needed. Stargate, Across, and Hop each take radically different approaches to pool design, rebalancing, and speed. This page animates how they work under the hood.
🌊 Liquidity Pool Flow Animation
Watch how a cross-chain transfer flows through LP pools. Select a bridge protocol to see its specific mechanism.
Stargate uses unified liquidity pools connected via LayerZero. Delta algorithm ensures pools stay balanced across chains without over-reserving.
💰 Fee Comparison
Compare bridge fees across protocols. Adjust the transfer amount to see how fees scale.
⚖️ Pool Rebalancing Mechanism
When one pool gets drained and another overfills, the protocol must rebalance. Adjust pool imbalance to see how each protocol responds.
📡 Speed × Cost × Security Tradeoff
Every bridge makes tradeoffs. This radar chart compares three dimensions across protocols.
📋 Protocol Deep Dive
Stargate
- Mechanism: Unified liquidity pools
- Messaging: LayerZero
- Speed: 1-5 min (finality dependent)
- Token: STG for governance
- Rebalance: Delta algorithm
- Strength: Guaranteed finality at source
Across
- Mechanism: Competitive relayer network
- Messaging: UMA Optimistic Oracle
- Speed: 1-3 min (relayer fronts funds)
- Token: ACX
- Rebalance: LP pool + relayer reimbursement
- Strength: Fastest with lowest fees
Hop Protocol
- Mechanism: Bonder-based with hTokens
- Messaging: Native rollup bridges
- Speed: 2-10 min (bonder dependent)
- Token: HOP
- Rebalance: AMM between hTokens/canonical
- Strength: Uses native bridge security