Why Across Has Never Been Hacked: A New Approach to Crypto Bridge Security

The evolution of crypto bridge security tells two stories. 

The first – a cautionary tale, with nearly $2.9B lost to bridge hacks, shaking user confidence. 

The second story – one of innovation and resilience – is still being written.

In 2024, Across processed $11.6B in bridge volume without a single security incident. This wasn't luck—it was by design. While some other bridges are still vulnerable to bridging exploits, Across's unique architecture has proven that secure bridging at scale is possible.

This paradigm shift stems from a radical rethinking of bridge security. Rather than asking users to trust representative assets or validation mechanisms, we leverage an Intents-based architecture in which relayers—not users—take on the risk. 

Here's how this approach is redefining bridge security.

Before diving into how Across revolutionizes bridge security, let's examine the key vulnerabilities plaguing traditional bridges. Each represents a critical lesson in bridge architecture.

Traditional crypto bridges ask users to trust "wrapped" or representative versions of their assets. When you bridge ETH, you typically receive a wrapped version like wrapped ETH. This introduces several critical risks:

Real-World Example: In 2022, a hacker exploited a flaw in Wormhole Bridge’s contract’s verification steps. The attacker minted wrapped tokens without proper collateralization, making off with 120,000 wETH (worth over $320 million).

Across's Approach: Complete rejection of wrapped assets in favor of canonical assets only. When you bridge 1 ETH with Across, you receive 1 real ETH - not a wrapped representation.

New to crypto bridging? Check out our complete guide to crypto bridges

Some other types of crypto bridges rely on a set of validators to approve transfers. This creates a centralized point of failure:

Real-World Example: In the Ronin Bridge hack of 2022, an attacker infiltrated Sky Mavis’s network to take control of five (out of nine) validators used to validate transactions for the Ronin network. This culminated in the loss of $624 million.

Across's Approach: Instead of traditional validators, we have built a competitive relayer network where economic incentives ensure security.

Many crypto bridges concentrate control in the hands of a small group of administrators or multi-sig holders. This centralization creates severe security risks:

Real-World Example: The Harmony Bridge hack of 2022 resulted from the compromise of two out of five private keys controlled by centralized operators.

Across's Approach: Decentralized security through UMA's optimistic oracle system, where any participant can flag malicious behavior, and economic incentives help maintain system integrity.

Traditional bridges must lock up user funds, creating massive honeypots that attract attackers. Consider:

Real-World Example: The Multichain Bridge hack in 2023 led to unauthorized withdrawals of locked funds due to compromised private keys, with losses exceeding $125 million.

Across's Approach: There are no locked funds. Instead, relayers front capital for transfers, eliminating the honeypot risk.

Many bridges rely on complex crosschain messaging systems that:

Real-World Example: The Alex Bridge suffered $4.3 million in losses due to a compromised deployer account during a contract upgrade.

Across's Approach: Intents-based architecture eliminates the need for complex messaging systems. Users simply express what they want to happen, and relayers compete to make it a reality.

Traditional bridges ask users to accept significant risks: wrapped assets that could fail, validators that could be compromised, or massive honeypots that attract attackers. Across takes a radically different approach - one where users never have to compromise on security.

At Across, we're canonical asset maximalists. This isn't just a philosophy - it's a security imperative. Users who bridge through Across receive only genuine, canonical assets on the destination chain. This means when you bridge ETH, you get real ETH - not a wrapped version that could be compromised in a bridge exploit. 

By avoiding wrapped tokens entirely, we remove the risk of minting exploits and bridge-specific token failures. Users only need to trust the underlying blockchain, not additional bridge tokens or validation mechanisms.

Instead of forcing users to take on risk, Across's innovative relayer network fundamentally transforms the bridge security model. 

Our relayers compete to provide the fastest and cheapest service while fronting their capital for transfers. This competition creates a decentralized, market-driven security model where relayers - not users - take on finality risk in exchange for modest fees.

Fierce competition among relayers keeps fees low while maintaining robust security, and our batched repayment system optimizes gas costs for everyone involved.

Across is secured by UMA's optimistic oracle, creating a unique guarantee in the bridge ecosystem. The system enables any participant to flag malicious behavior, with economic incentives ensuring honest verification. This creates an environment where disputes are rare because bad actors stand to lose their stake. 

Perhaps most importantly, the entire system remains secure as long as just one honest participant exists - a dramatic improvement over multi-sig systems that can fail if a few validators are compromised.

While other bridges force users to choose between speed and security, Across delivers both. Through our competitive relayer network, users enjoy instant transfers without sacrificing safety. Our optimistic verification system maintains security without imposing delays, and our batched settlement approach optimizes gas costs without compromising speed. The result is a bridge that's both faster and more secure than traditional alternatives.

With billions in bridge volume moving daily across chains, choosing the right bridge isn't just about speed or cost - it's about protecting your assets. 

Here's what to look for when evaluating bridge security:

Across answers these questions through verifiable technical architecture rather than marketing promises. Users receive canonical assets, relayers bear transfer risk, and the system remains secure with just one honest participant in the network.

If you're building crosschain applications, bridge security becomes even more critical. Your users' security depends on your bridge choice. Across offers:

The crypto community cannot become desensitized to bridge hacks. We can’t accept multi-million dollar exploits as inevitable risks of crosschain operations. Accepting such vulnerability isn't just dangerous - it's unnecessary.

A safer crosschain ecosystem is possible, but it requires rethinking bridge architecture from the ground up. This is where Across' layered approach proves its value:

Traditional bridges often add security features after their core architecture is established. Across takes the opposite approach - security principles shape every aspect of the system:

The old belief that security requires sacrificing performance doesn't hold with modern bridging architecture. Across demonstrates this through:

The most secure bridge is the one that people can use confidently and correctly. Across's user-first design includes:

This combination of architectural innovation, performance optimization, and user-centric design creates something unique in the bridge ecosystem - a more secure and usable solution than traditional alternatives.

The history of bridge security has been written in lost funds and compromised assets. But with Across, a new chapter is being written - one where security doesn't require compromise.

In 2024, Across demonstrated this new paradigm at scale:

This isn't just about building a better bridge - it's about establishing the foundation for a truly interoperable Web3. Through canonical assets, intent-based architecture, and decentralized validation, Across is proving that cross-chain interactions can be as secure as they are seamless.

For Users:

For Developers:

The future of crosschain interaction doesn't have to be defined by security compromises. It can be - and with Across, already is - defined by security guarantees.