Short answer
Tokens never literally travel between blockchains. Every cross-chain transfer either pays you on the destination chain from someone else's funds (intents, liquidity pools) or destroys or locks tokens on one chain and creates them on another (burn-and-mint, lock-and-mint, canonical bridges). Intent-based bridges are usually the fastest because a solver pays you first and settles later; mint-based designs avoid liquidity limits but must wait for messages or attestations to be verified.
Definitions
- Intent: an order that states the outcome you want — "100 USDC on Base" — rather than the steps. Across defines it this way and contrasts it with traditional bridges where the user follows a fixed path (Across docs: cross-chain intents).
- Solver (filler, relayer): a party that fulfils the intent with its own capital and is repaid. ERC-7683 standardises how intent protocols expose orders to solvers (ERC-7683).
- Attestation or message verification: proof that an event on chain A happened, checked before anything is created on chain B.
The four mechanisms
1. Intents and solvers
You deposit on the source chain; a solver delivers on the destination chain within seconds and later claims repayment from your deposit. Across states that most deposits are filled in about 2 seconds and that unfilled deposits are refunded after their deadline (Across docs: refunds). NEAR Intents describes market makers competing to fill an intent, with atomic execution: the swap completes fully or funds go back to the refund address (NEAR Intents: what are intents). Intents can also include a swap, so you can send ETH and receive SOL.
2. Lock-and-mint
The original token is locked in a contract on one chain and a representation is minted on another. USDT0 works this way: USDT is locked in an adapter contract on Ethereum and USDT0 is minted on other chains after LayerZero verifier networks check the message; burning USDT0 unlocks the original (USDT0 docs).
3. Burn-and-mint
The issuer's own protocol burns the token on the source chain and mints it on the destination. Circle's CCTP does this for USDC, with no liquidity pool (Circle: CCTP). Fast Transfer attestations take about 20 seconds from Ethereum; Standard Transfer waits for finality, about 15–19 minutes (Circle: CCTP finality).
4. Canonical rollup bridges
Each rollup has an official bridge to Ethereum. Deposits are quick, but withdrawals back to Ethereum wait for the dispute window: on Arbitrum roughly one week, after which you claim on Ethereum (Arbitrum docs: bridge troubleshooting). See Arbitrum native bridge and OP Stack native bridge.
Comparison
| Mechanism | Typical speed | Liquidity limit | Main trust assumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intents and solvers | Seconds | Solver capital | Settlement contracts and solver repayment |
| Lock-and-mint | Minutes | Locked supply | Lock contract and message verifiers |
| Burn-and-mint (CCTP) | Seconds to minutes | None for USDC | Issuer attestation |
| Canonical rollup bridge | Deposit: minutes; withdrawal: about a week | None | Rollup's proof system |
What our measurements show
Aggregators route through all of these. In upswap run #62 (sampled 2026-10-24 12:35 UTC), the cheapest $200 quote came from an intent or solver network on many routes — Across on Ethereum → Arbitrum USDC (1.42 bps), NEAR Intents 1Click on Base → Arbitrum USDC (1.21 bps) — while Mayan FAST_MCTP was cheapest on Ethereum → Base USDC (0.32 bps). Which mechanism wins changes by route and run, so compare live quotes. Compare bridges side by side on the compare page.
Which one should you use?
- Same stablecoin, small or medium amount, need speed: intent bridges or CCTP Fast Transfer.
- USDC, large amount, can wait: CCTP Standard Transfer avoids solver capital limits.
- Leaving a rollup, no rush, want the protocol's own security: the canonical bridge.
- Changing asset across chains: an intent or aggregator route; compare price impact at your size (fee layers).
FAQ
Are intent bridges custodial?
The solver never holds your deposit; it sits in a contract until settlement. You rely on that contract and the settlement process instead. See custodial vs non-custodial.
Why are intent bridges faster than official bridges?
A solver pays you from its own funds immediately and takes on the waiting time and finality risk itself.
Is a wrapped token the same as the original?
No. A wrapped or bridged token is only as good as the contract and verifiers behind it. Check which version your destination app accepts.
Sources
- Across docs: cross-chain intents — accessed 2026-10-24
- Across docs: refunds — accessed 2026-10-24
- ERC-7683: cross-chain intents — accessed 2026-10-24
- NEAR Intents docs: what are intents — accessed 2026-10-24
- USDT0 docs: the USDT0 network — accessed 2026-10-24
- Circle developer docs: CCTP and finality — accessed 2026-10-24
- Arbitrum docs: bridge troubleshooting — accessed 2026-10-24
- upswap snapshot run #62, 2026-10-24 12:35–12:37 UTC (open data)