tl;dr
- Each L1 has a self-contained economy where users pay gas fees in the native token, and stronger ecosystems drive adoption and TVL.
- Bridges are now the fastest way to import liquidity, users, and developers from other chains.
- L1s that integrate bridges deeply position themselves as multi-chain hubs, not isolated networks.
A Brief Introduction to L1 Blockchain Ecosystems
Layer-1 (L1) blockchains are the foundational networks that power entire on-chain ecosystems. The concept of tokenization was pioneered in 2013 by Vitalik Buterin and Meni Rosenfeld through the Bitcoin-based Colored Coins project. Colored Coins opened the door to representing assets digitally on a blockchain.
Buterin later launched Ethereum, the first blockchain to fully support both tokenization and smart contracts. Ethereum enabled a wave of new use cases, including stablecoins, NFTs, DeFi, DAOs, and more.
Each L1 ecosystem functions as a self-contained economy where applications run natively on the chain, and users pay gas fees using the blockchain’s native token. As Ethereum’s success grew, many rival smart contract blockchains emerged, such as Solana and EOS, each aiming to expand their ecosystem of tokens, dApps, and developers.
A strong ecosystem increases network activity, drives demand for the native token, and ultimately makes an L1 more appealing to users, builders, and investors.
Why Bridges Are Now the #1 Growth Lever for L1 Foundations
Bridges have become the #1 growth lever for Layer-1 foundations because they are now the fastest and most reliable way to import liquidity, users, and builders in an increasingly interconnected, multi-chain world.
In 2025, no L1 can survive as an isolated island. Growth depends on tapping into the massive pools of capital and users already living on Ethereum, Solana, and the major L1 ecosystems.
At the center of this strategy is the liquidity flywheel: TVL attracts developers, developers launch dApps, and dApps bring more liquidity. Since most new capital entering emerging L1s comes from other chains, not fresh fiat, bridges function as the top of the funnel, converting external assets into native TVL.
Once liquidity flows in, three effects kick in: developers prefer deploying where deep liquidity already exists; dApps in liquid environments can build sustainable models without relying on short-term incentives; and growing TVL reinforces the narrative that an L1 is gaining momentum.
With competition at an all-time high, foundations that deeply integrate bridging infrastructure position themselves as interoperable hubs rather than isolated endpoints, capturing more users, fees, and developer mindshare in the process.
The Hidden Move: 6 Ways L1 Foundations Weaponize Bridges
Bridges have become one of the most powerful growth levers for Layer-1 foundations. They’re the only tool that simultaneously drives liquidity, users, and interoperability without requiring the chain to grow in isolation. Below is the strategic, numbered framework foundations now rely on to win the multi-chain game.
1. Official Canonical Bridges (Trust-Minimized & Foundation-Backed)
Many L1s now promote a single “official” canonical bridge, endorsed in docs, wallets, dashboards, and BD deals. By consolidating liquidity into a single representation of key assets, foundations standardize the UX, reduce token fragmentation, and maintain protocol-level control over upgrades, fees, and message-passing standards. The canonical bridge becomes a policy tool as much as a technical one.
The only drawback is that while those devs are talented in chain building, they may not fully understand the complexity and risks of cross-chain bridging, potentially causing failures.
2. Incentive Programs & Liquidity Mining on Bridges
Rather than spreading incentives across fragmented pools, foundations funnel rewards through the bridge itself. Incentivized native–wrapped tokens deepen preferred routes, increase throughput, and build user habit. Once enough TVL is anchored, the bridge becomes defensible infrastructure, capturing flows even after incentives fade.
3. Bridge Grants & Builder Bounty Programs
Foundations fund builders who integrate, extend, or secure their preferred third-party bridge. Grants go to the bridge team to integrate a specific chain. Preferring bridges with high security standards, bounties, and audits creates an incentive to harden the exact infrastructure through which most external TVL enters the chain.
4. Co-Marketing & Joint Liquidity Bootstrapping
L1s and bridge teams co-run campaigns: fee holidays, “bridge weeks,” quests, AMAs, and liquidity bootstrapping events around the canonical asset routes. The bridge supplies cross-chain users; the L1 supplies incentives and flagship dApps. Together, they generate inflows neither could spark alone.
5. Governance Takeovers & Strategic Acquisitions
Some foundations go a bit further and acquire bridge teams or take governance influence through token deals. Controlling fee switches, upgrade keys, or roadmaps lets the L1 align bridge infrastructure with its long-term strategy. The bridge becomes sovereign infrastructure rather than a neutral third-party service.
6. “Fast Bridge” Default Integrations in Wallets & dApps
Finally, foundations secure the most overlooked advantage: default status. When wallets, DEXs, or portfolio apps pre-select a bridge route, most users stick with it. BD deals and grants help foundations ensure their preferred bridge is the default, quietly capturing flows through sheer convenience.
Case Study #1: Arbitrum
Arbitrum became the leading L2 ecosystem by leaning heavily on a bridge-first growth strategy. Its rise from $0 to more than $15 billion in TVL was driven by three pillars: the Nitro upgrade, the Arbitrum Orbit framework, and massive foundation-backed liquidity incentives tied directly to its official bridge.
Nitro and Orbit improved throughput and enabled customizable L2 instances, but the real unlock came from making Arbitrum’s canonical bridge the default pathway for ETH, stablecoins, and blue-chip assets. The Arbitrum Foundation committed over 700 million ARB to bridge liquidity mining, rewarding users and LPs for bridging capital into the ecosystem.
This approach created a powerful flywheel: more bridged liquidity → more protocols → more users → even more TVL. At its peak, Arbitrum’s bridge accounted for over $11B in assets, helping the network dominate L2 TVL throughout 2024–2025.
Case Study #2: Sui
Sui’s rapid ascent to the #8 spot by TVL in under 18 months was driven by an aggressive, bridge-first strategy backed by a $500 million liquidity commitment. Instead of relying on purely native growth, the Sui Foundation positioned the chain as a multi-chain hub. SUI integrated Wormhole, Axelar, LayerZero, and its own native Sui Bridge to import liquidity from Ethereum and Solana.
Wormhole’s Portal Bridge unlocked immediate access to blue-chip assets like ETH, WETH, USDC, MATIC, BNB, AVAX, and SOL. Axelar and LayerZero added programmable interoperability, enabling cross-chain contract calls and deeper dApp integrations. Sui’s native bridge provided a canonical, foundation-supported route for transfers.
The Sui Foundation then deployed $500M in incentives to deepen liquidity in bridged asset pools, attracting users, DeFi protocols, and institutional capital. This strategy rapidly bootstrapped TVL, turning Sui into one of the fastest-growing L1 ecosystems of 2024-2025.
Case Study #3: Solana
Solana’s explosive cross-chain growth in 2024-2025 was powered by an aggressive bridge expansion strategy. The Solana Foundation quietly became the largest bridge liquidity provider in the ecosystem. By backing deBridge, Mayan, Allbridge, and Wormhole, while simultaneously pushing adoption of its official Token Extensions bridge, Solana created multiple high-throughput, low-slippage entry points for liquidity.
Strategic partnerships enabled Solana to cover every bridging architecture: Wormhole and Mayan for lock-and-mint transfers, Allbridge for liquidity-pool swaps, and deBridge for zero-TVL, native-asset routing. Supporting all four ensured users always had a secure, fast path onto Solana, while minimizing fragmentation across wrapped assets.
The Foundation amplified this with grants, liquidity incentives, and deep technical support, making Solana’s supported bridges the default options in wallets and dApps. Combined with Token Extensions’ canonical, trust-minimized bridge route, this strategy funneled billions into Solana’s DeFi ecosystem and cemented it as a leading multi-chain liquidity hub.
The Dark Side: When Bridge Strategies Backfire
Bridge-first growth can accelerate liquidity, users, and ecosystem expansion—but when mismanaged, the same strategies can become vectors for catastrophic collapse. The failures of Terra, Multichain, and Ronin reveal how fragile bridge infrastructure can be when paired with weak security, unsustainable economics, or centralized control.
Terra: When Bridges Accelerate an Algorithmic Death Spiral
Terra relied on aggressive cross-chain expansion to distribute its algorithmic stablecoin, UST. Through Terra’s official bridge, UST and LUNA flowed freely to and from Ethereum, enabling massive multi-chain liquidity. However, it also exposed Terra’s fragile economic design to global market pressures.
Because UST was not backed by traditional collateral, the system depended on mint-and-burn arbitrage and unsustainable yields. When major outflows began, the peg broke, triggering a cascade where LUNA supply hyperinflated to defend UST. The bridge, intended to be Terra’s growth engine, accelerated the collapse by allowing users to rapidly exit across chains. Within days, over $45 billion evaporated, fueled in part by the very interoperability Terra used to scale.
2. Multichain: The Single-Point-of-Failure Bridge
Multichain attempted to be the universal router for all chains, but its architecture relied heavily on a centralized multisig and opaque operational practices. In 2022, a compromise of Multichain’s admin keys enabled attackers to drain over $130 million from its bridging contracts.
Because Multichain connected dozens of chains, the breach rippled outward: assets across multiple ecosystems depegged, liquidity vanished, and protocols dependent on Multichain routes were crippled. The incident showcased a harsh reality: when a dominant bridge fails, entire cross-chain economies fail with it.
3. Ronin: Validator Capture and the Cost of Centralization
The Ronin Bridge, used by Axie Infinity, became one of the largest exploits in crypto history when attackers secured control over 5 of 9 validators. This control enabled them to withdraw $625 million in ETH and USDC. Ronin’s problem wasn’t interoperability; it was centralized trust.
Limited validator diversity and poor operational security made the bridge’s multisig easy to compromise.
The attack shattered user confidence, drained liquidity, and forced emergency intervention from both the project and regulators. It remains a case study in how custodial concentration can turn a single exploit into an ecosystem-wide disaster.
Lessons Learned
These failures reveal a consistent pattern: bridge-first strategies are powerful but dangerous when built on centralized security models, fragile economics, or opaque governance. To avoid repeat disasters, chains must prioritize distributed validation, transparent operations, and sustainable liquidity structures. Otherwise, the same bridges meant to accelerate growth can become the infrastructure that accelerates collapse.
2025 Bridge Leaderboard – Which Do Foundations Trust?
As cross-chain interoperability becomes core infrastructure for Web3, foundations increasingly back bridges that deliver security, uptime, deep liquidity, and institutional trust. The 2025 bridge leaderboard spotlights the solutions most integrated, funded, and adopted across major ecosystems.
Transporter - Chainlink CCIP’s Flagship Bridge
Transporter has become a top choice for foundations thanks to Chainlink’s CCIP, one of the most secure and audited interoperability protocols.
Using lock-and-mint or burn-and-mint models, it enables cross-chain asset and data transfers across Arbitrum, Base, BNB Chain, Avalanche, Celo, Blast, and Ethereum. CCIP’s programmable messaging unlocks advanced multi-chain applications, positioning Transporter as an “enterprise-grade” cross-chain standard.
Bridge.XYZ - The Institutional Fiat & Stablecoin Rail
Bridge.XYZ specializes in compliant, stablecoin-based global money movement and is widely trusted by enterprises and U.S. government partners. With orchestration and issuance APIs, the platform simplifies multi-chain stablecoin conversions for payroll, cross-border payments, and corporate treasury. Its recent $1.1B acquisition by Stripe cemented it as the most institutionally validated bridge infrastructure in Web3.
ChainPort - The Altcoin Connectivity Leader
ChainPort dominates altcoin bridging, connecting nearly 30 chains while using a fund-segregated security framework. Up to 98% of assets stay in cold-storage multisigs using Gnosis Safe and Fireblocks MPC, offering one of the safest models in the industry. With fast transfers, native altcoin support, and USDC bridging via Circle’s CCTP, ChainPort is the preferred solution for mid-cap ecosystems and token issuers.
Wormhole - The High-Liquidity, Multi-Chain Bridge Standard
Wormhole remains one of the most widely integrated bridges across Ethereum, Solana, Sui, Cosmos, BNB Chain, Base, and more. Its lock-and-mint model, plus deep liquidity in Portal Bridge, supports key assets like ETH, SOL, USDC, MATIC, and AVAX. Backed by major foundations and adopted by leading dApps, Wormhole provides high throughput, broad asset coverage, and a proven security track record.
LayerZero - The Omnichain Messaging Protocol
LayerZero is the leading general-purpose messaging layer used by foundations that want more than asset transfers. Its ultra-light nodes enable cross-chain smart contract calls, omnichain token standards, and multi-chain dApp deployments. Integrated across Ethereum, Avalanche, BNB Chain, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, and Sui, LayerZero supports everything from bridging to governance syncing. With major institutional backers and deep ecosystem funding, LayerZero continues to be the go-to infrastructure for advanced interoperability.
How to Spot the Next 100x L1: Follow the Bridge Money
In 2025, venture giants like a16z and Paradigm are shifting their focus toward infrastructure maturity. They are placing their bets on L1s that treat bridges as critical, transparent infrastructure. To find the next 100x gem, follow the funds that prioritize sustainable budgets and diversified security over those chasing rapid, artificial growth.
The Warning Signs
When evaluating a new ecosystem, skepticism is your best defense.
You should be immediately wary of projects that promise guaranteed, outsized returns through bridge incentives, as this often masks economic fragility. If a foundation is vague about how funds are deployed or relies on a centralized multisig wallet for custody, consider it a major security risk similar to the exploits seen with Ronin. Furthermore, broken unit economics are a clear signal to stay away; if a project burns more capital on incentives than it generates in actual ecosystem value, the foundation is likely unstable.
The Indicators of Strength
Conversely, a promising L1 demonstrates clarity and openness.
Look for foundations that publicly disclose their bridge budgets and articulate exactly how incentives will drive genuine developer activity rather than just temporary liquidity. Security should be diversified, utilizing multiple bridge solutions to avoid single points of failure. The strongest projects prioritize audited code and empower their community to participate in governance, ensuring that the ecosystem is built for longevity rather than a short-term pump.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which L1 has the best bridge strategy in 2025?
Arbitrum and Sui lead in 2025 with official canonical bridges, multi-bridge integrations, and large foundation-backed liquidity programs that attract external TVL efficiently.
How much do foundations pay bridge liquidity providers?
Foundations allocate tens to hundreds of millions in tokens. Arbitrum spent 700M+ ARB; Sui committed $500M+ in SUI and grants for liquidity and developer incentives.
Are third-party bridges still safe after the 2022–2024 hacks?
Security has improved with audits, validator-oracle models, and emergency systems, but risks remain. Prioritize well-audited bridges with multi-sig/MPC custody and strong track records.
Will Ethereum ever need bridges again with Danksharding?
Yes. Danksharding boosts Ethereum’s internal throughput but doesn’t replace cross-chain interoperability. Bridges remain crucial for accessing other blockchains and multi-chain assets.
