A bridge moves value between blockchains. Common designs lock or burn an asset on the source chain and mint or unlock a representation on the destination chain. Users get liquidity on a new network without selling on a centralized exchange. Bridges also concentrate custodial and smart-contract risk because large pots of locked assets become attractive targets.
Why it matters
Bridges enabled multi-chain DeFi and layer-2 usage. They also account for some of crypto largest historical hacks. When locked reserves are drained, wrapped tokens on the destination side can lose their backing and trade at a discount or collapse. Convenience and catastrophic tail risk travel together.
Operational hygiene matters. Prefer official bridge interfaces, verify URLs and contract addresses, and send a small test transfer before moving size. Watch finality times and exit delays. Some paths are fast messages. Others are slow withdrawals with challenge windows. Calling every hop a bridge hides those differences.
Alternatives include centralized exchange deposits and withdrawals across chains, intent-based solvers, and native mint-and-burn designs with clearer issuer responsibility. None are free of risk. The desk question is which failure mode you accept when you need funds on another chain quickly.
Simple example
You lock ETH on Ethereum and receive a wrapped representation on a layer 2 through an official bridge. Later you bridge back. If the lock contract is compromised while your funds sit bridged, the wrapped token may no longer be fully redeemable. Your layer-2 balance looked like ETH. Economically it depended on the bridge vault remaining solvent.
Bridge risk also includes downtime and governance freezes. Even without a hack, paused messages can trap inventory on the wrong chain while the opportunity you bridged for disappears.
Related terms
See layer 2, smart contract, counterparty risk, wrapped token, and Ethereum. Browse more in the crypto glossary.