pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.03083 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-03 · 💻 cs.PF

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The Price of Interoperability: Exploring Cross-Chain Bridges and Their Economic Consequences

Lin William Cong, Mingzhe Zheng, Siguang Li, Xuechao Wang, Yiyue Cao

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 18:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.PF
keywords cross-chain bridgesblockchain interoperabilityhypergraph modelliquidity flowsempirical measurementEVM chainsnetwork structure
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cross-chain bridges create connectivity that rarely matches actual usage across blockchains.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper models the blockchain ecosystem as a time-varying weighted hypergraph to separate infrastructure provision from realized usage. Structural interoperability measures bridge coverage and redundancy independent of behavior, while active interoperability tracks normalized transfer volumes. Analysis of 20 chains and 16 bridges from 2022 to 2025 shows the network shifting from sparse hub-and-spoke to denser multi-hub form led by EVM chains. Bridge growth proves uneven, with some chains gaining broad links yet low transfer activity and others concentrating flows on few routes. The core result is that infrastructure deployment and economic integration diverge sharply.

Core claim

Modeling the multi-chain ecosystem as a time-varying weighted hypergraph yields two metrics: structural interoperability, which reflects bridge coverage and redundancy from deployed infrastructure, and active interoperability, which reflects realized usage through normalized transfer activity. The network evolves into a denser multi-hub core dominated by EVM-compatible chains, yet expansion remains uneven so that many chains achieve wide structural access with limited realized transfers while activity concentrates on narrow routes.

What carries the argument

Time-varying weighted hypergraph that decomposes interoperability into structural coverage from bridges versus normalized transfer activity.

If this is right

  • The cross-chain network densifies into a multi-hub structure led by EVM-compatible chains.
  • Some chains obtain broad structural access through bridges yet realize low transfer volumes.
  • Cross-chain activity concentrates on a small set of routes rather than spreading broadly.
  • Connectivity supplied by infrastructure does not produce economically meaningful liquidity integration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Bridge operators may need usage incentives or route optimization beyond simple deployment to close the gap.
  • Liquidity fragmentation across chains could persist even as technical links multiply.
  • The hypergraph approach offers a template for measuring integration gaps in other networked payment or asset systems.

Load-bearing premise

The hypergraph model and chosen normalization for transfers accurately separate bridge infrastructure capacity from actual usage without systematic data or metric biases.

What would settle it

A new dataset showing strong positive correlation between structural bridge coverage and normalized transfer volumes across most chains and periods would falsify the divergence result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.03083 by Lin William Cong, Mingzhe Zheng, Siguang Li, Xuechao Wang, Yiyue Cao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of the cross-chain corridor network with annual snapshots from 2022 to 2025. Nodes are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Weekly bridge-level activity (2022–2025). Stacked areas show the top-10 bridges ranked over the full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Bridge composition of cross-ecosystem traffic between EVM and non-EVM chains. Left: shares [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Weekly endpoint share by chain (top-10 + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Largest absolute net flows by chain pair over the study window (USD billions). Arrows indicate net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bridge “layering” by overall share of transfer counts (x-axis) versus overall share of USD notional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Monthly share gap Δ𝑏 (𝑡) = 𝑠 amount 𝑏 (𝑡) − 𝑠 count 𝑏 (𝑡) for the top-8 bridges by aggregate USD notional. Positive values indicate that a bridge accounts for a larger share of notional than of counts (value-heavy), and negative values indicate the opposite (count-heavy). Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., Vol. 10, No. 2, Article 52. Publication date: June 2026 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Modern blockchain ecosystems comprise many heterogeneous networks, creating a growing need for interoperability. Cross-chain bridges provide the core infrastructure for this interoperability by enabling verifiable state transitions that move assets and liquidity across chains. While prior work has focused mainly on bridge design and security, the system-level and economic consequences of cross-chain liquidity interoperability remain less understood. We present a large-scale empirical measurement study of cross-chain interoperability using a dataset spanning 20 blockchains and 16 major bridge protocols from 2022 to 2025. We model the multi-chain ecosystem as a time-varying weighted hypergraph and introduce two complementary metrics. Structural interoperability captures connectivity created by deployed bridge infrastructure, reflecting bridge coverage and redundancy independent of user behavior. Active interoperability captures realized cross-chain usage, measured by normalized transfer activity. This decomposition separates infrastructure capacity from actual utilization and yields several findings. The cross-chain network evolves from a sparse hub-and-spoke structure into a denser multi-hub core led by EVM-compatible chains. Bridge expansion and chain growth are uneven: some chains achieve broad structural access but limited realized usage, whereas others concentrate activity through a small set of routes. Overall, interoperability provision and interoperability use diverge substantially, showing that connectivity alone does not imply economically meaningful integration. These results provide a measurement framework for understanding how cross-chain infrastructure reshapes blockchain market structure and liquidity organization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a large-scale empirical measurement study of cross-chain interoperability across 20 blockchains and 16 bridge protocols (2022–2025). It models the ecosystem as a time-varying weighted hypergraph and defines two metrics: structural interoperability (bridge-induced connectivity and redundancy independent of usage) and active interoperability (normalized transfer activity). The central claim is that these diverge substantially—the network evolves from a sparse hub-and-spoke structure to a denser multi-hub core led by EVM-compatible chains—demonstrating that infrastructure provision does not imply economically meaningful integration.

Significance. If the decomposition holds, the work supplies a reproducible measurement framework that separates infrastructure capacity from realized usage, with direct implications for understanding liquidity organization and market structure in multi-chain systems. The temporal scope and scale of the dataset are notable strengths that could support falsifiable follow-on predictions about bridge economics.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Hypergraph model and metric definitions): The active interoperability metric relies on a normalization of transfer activity whose denominator is not shown to be robust to alternatives such as chain TVL, user-base size, or native-token volatility. Because the reported divergence between structural and active interoperability is the load-bearing claim, any systematic bias in this normalization could artifactually produce the observed gap rather than reflect genuine economic non-integration.
  2. [§4] §4 (Empirical results and network evolution): No details are supplied on data validation, handling of missing transfers, statistical tests for structural changes, or sensitivity to bridge-selection criteria. These omissions directly affect the reliability of the claim that the network evolves from sparse hub-and-spoke to multi-hub core.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure 2 (or equivalent time-series plot): axis labels and legend entries for the two interoperability metrics should be made fully explicit so readers can reproduce the normalization step.
  2. [Methods] The abstract states findings for 2022–2025 but the methods section does not specify the exact end date or any right-censoring adjustments; this should be clarified for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which highlight important areas for strengthening the methodological transparency and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment point by point below and will incorporate the suggested improvements in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] The active interoperability metric relies on a normalization of transfer activity whose denominator is not shown to be robust to alternatives such as chain TVL, user-base size, or native-token volatility. Because the reported divergence between structural and active interoperability is the load-bearing claim, any systematic bias in this normalization could artifactually produce the observed gap rather than reflect genuine economic non-integration.

    Authors: We agree that robustness checks on the normalization are essential to support the central claim. The active interoperability metric normalizes transfer counts by each chain's total on-chain activity volume to control for scale. In the revision we will add a dedicated sensitivity subsection to §3 that re-computes the metric under three alternative denominators: (i) chain TVL, (ii) number of active addresses as a proxy for user base, and (iii) volatility-adjusted volumes using native-token price data. We will report that the structural-active divergence remains statistically and qualitatively consistent across these specifications, indicating it is not an artifact of the original choice. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] No details are supplied on data validation, handling of missing transfers, statistical tests for structural changes, or sensitivity to bridge-selection criteria. These omissions directly affect the reliability of the claim that the network evolves from sparse hub-and-spoke to multi-hub core.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current §4 lacks sufficient methodological detail. In the revised version we will insert a new subsection (4.1) that explicitly describes: (1) data validation steps, including cross-checks against multiple on-chain explorers and bridge APIs; (2) treatment of missing transfers, which are flagged via timestamp gaps and handled by conservative exclusion with robustness checks on imputed subsets; (3) statistical tests for structural evolution, including bootstrap resampling of hypergraph communities and permutation tests for the emergence of the EVM multi-hub core; and (4) sensitivity to bridge-selection criteria, with results replicated on the full set versus a core subset of the 10 largest bridges. These additions will directly substantiate the reported network evolution. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; metrics constructed independently from data

full rationale

The paper defines structural interoperability directly from deployed bridge hyperedges (coverage and redundancy counts) and active interoperability from normalized transfer activity counts, both drawn from the same external dataset of 20 chains and 16 bridges. No equations reduce one metric to a function of the other by construction, no parameters are fitted then relabeled as predictions, and no self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked to justify the decomposition. The reported divergence is an empirical comparison of these two independently measured quantities, rendering the central claim self-contained against the raw transfer and bridge-deployment data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the hypergraph representation captures bridge connectivity and that normalized transfer counts measure realized usage; two new metrics are introduced without independent prior validation.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The multi-chain ecosystem can be modeled as a time-varying weighted hypergraph where bridges define hyperedges.
    Invoked to represent structural connectivity across heterogeneous chains.
invented entities (2)
  • Structural interoperability metric no independent evidence
    purpose: Quantifies bridge coverage and redundancy independent of user behavior.
    Newly defined to separate infrastructure from utilization.
  • Active interoperability metric no independent evidence
    purpose: Quantifies realized cross-chain usage via normalized transfer activity.
    Complementary measure introduced to capture actual economic activity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5551 in / 1233 out tokens · 23108 ms · 2026-05-13T18:15:03.274033+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Unlocking the Forecasting Economy: A Suite of Datasets for the Full Lifecycle of Prediction Market: [Experiments \& Analysis]

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A unified relational dataset suite for Polymarket prediction markets integrating over 770k markets, 943M trades, and 2M oracle events with a reproducible collection pipeline.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    André Augusto, Rafael Belchior, Miguel Correia, André Vasconcelos, Luyao Zhang, and Thomas Hardjono. 2024. Sok: Security and privacy of blockchain interoperability. In2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 3840–3865

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    André Augusto, André Vasconcelos, Miguel Correia, and Luyao Zhang. 2025. XChainDataGen: A Cross-Chain Dataset Generation Framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13637(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Anton I Badev and Cy Watsky. 2023. Interconnected DeFi: Ripple effects from the terra collapse. (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Rafael Belchior, André Vasconcelos, Sérgio Guerreiro, and Miguel Correia. 2021. A survey on blockchain interoperability: Past, present, and future trends.Acm Computing Surveys (CSUR)54, 8 (2021), 1–41

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Nikita Belenkov, Valerian Callens, Alexandr Murashkin, Kacper Bak, Martin Derka, Jan Gorzny, and Sung-Shine Lee

    work page

  6. [6]

    SoK: A review of cross-chain bridge hacks in 2023.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03423(2025)

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Yinfeng Cao, Jiannong Cao, Dongbin Bai, Long Wen, Yang Liu, and Ruidong Li. 2025. Map the blockchain world: A trustless and scalable blockchain interoperability protocol for cross-chain applications. InProceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025. 717–726

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Agostino Capponi and Ruizhe Jia. 2025. Liquidity provision on blockchain-based decentralized exchanges.The Review of Financial Studies38, 10 (2025), 3040–3085

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Agostino Capponi, Ruizhe Jia, and Shihao Yu. 2026. Price discovery on decentralized exchanges.The Review of Financial Studies(2026), hhag002

    work page 2026

  10. [10]

    Lin William Cong, Xiang Hui, Catherine Tucker, and Luofeng Zhou. 2023. Scaling smart contracts via layer-2 technologies: Some empirical evidence.Management Science69, 12 (2023), 7306–7316

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    2025.Financial and informational integration through oracle networks

    Lin William Cong, Eswar S Prasad, and Daniel Rabetti. 2025.Financial and informational integration through oracle networks. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Cosmos SDK. 2026. x/circuit: Circuit Breaker Module Documentation. https://docs.cosmos.network/sdk/v0.50/build/ modules/circuit/README. Accessed 2026-01-13

    work page 2026

  13. [13]

    deBridge. 2026. deBridge DLN API: Daily Statistics Endpoint. https://dln-api.debridge.finance/api/Satistics/getDaily. Accessed 2026-01-13

    work page 2026

  14. [14]

    deBridge. 2026. deBridge DLN API: Orders Filtered List Endpoint. https://stats-api.dln.trade/api/Orders/filteredList. Accessed 2026-01-13

    work page 2026

  15. [15]

    DefiLlama. 2026. DefiLlama API: Historical Chain TVL. https://api.llama.fi/v2/historicalChainTvl/. Accessed 2026-01-13

    work page 2026

  16. [16]

    DefiLlama. 2026. DefiLlama API: Protocol TVL. https://api.llama.fi/protocol. Accessed 2026-01-13

    work page 2026

  17. [17]

    DefiLlama. 2026. DefiLlama Bridges Dashboard. https://defillama.com/bridges. Accessed 2026-01-13

    work page 2026

  18. [18]

    Zhihong Deng, Chunming Tang, Taotao Li, Zhikang Zeng, Parhat Abla, and Debiao He. 2025. SFPoW: Constructing Secure and Flexible Proof-of-Work Sidechains for Cross-Chain Interoperability with Wrapped Assets.IEEE Trans. Comput.(2025)

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Dune Analytics. 2026. Dune Analytics. https://dune.com/home. Accessed 2026-01-13

    work page 2026

  20. [20]

    Ethereum Foundation. 2024. Optimistic rollups. https://ethereum.org/developers/docs/scaling/optimistic-rollups/. Accessed 2026-01-13

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Ethereum Foundation. 2024. Zero-knowledge rollups. https://ethereum.org/developers/docs/scaling/zk-rollups/. Accessed 2026-01-13

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Ethereum Improvement Proposals. 2022. EIP-4844: Shard Blob Transactions. https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4844. Accessed 2026-01-10

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Christof Ferreira Torres, Albin Mamuti, Ben Weintraub, Cristina Nita-Rotaru, and Shweta Shinde. 2024. Rolling in the shadows: Analyzing the extraction of mev across layer-2 rollups. InProceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2591–2605

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Vincent Gramlich, Tobias Guggenberger, Marc Principato, Benjamin Schellinger, and Nils Urbach. 2023. A multivocal literature review of decentralized finance: Current knowledge and future research avenues.Electronic Markets33, 1 (2023), 11

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Panpan Han, Zheng Yan, Wenxiu Ding, Shufan Fei, and Zhiguo Wan. 2023. A survey on cross-chain technologies. Distributed ledger technologies: research and practice2, 2 (2023), 1–30

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Joel Hasbrouck, Thomas J Rivera, and Fahad Saleh. 2025. An economic model of a decentralized exchange with concentrated liquidity.Management Science(2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Joel Hasbrouck, Thomas J Rivera, and Fahad Saleh. 2026. The need for fees at a dex: How increases in fees can increase dex trading volume.Management Science(2026)

    work page 2026

  28. [28]

    Maurice Herlihy. 2018. Atomic Cross-Chain Swaps.arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09515(2018)

    work page arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Xiaohui Hu, Hang Feng, Pengcheng Xia, Gareth Tyson, Lei Wu, Yajin Zhou, and Haoyu Wang. 2024. Piecing Together the Jigsaw Puzzle of Transactions on Heterogeneous Blockchain Networks.Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems8, 3 (2024), 1–27. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., Vol. 10, No. 2, Article 52. Publication date: Ju...

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Chuanshan Huang, Tao Yan, and Claudio J Tessone. 2024. Seamlessly Transferring Assets through Layer-0 Bridges: An Empirical Analysis of Stargate Bridge’s Architecture and Dynamics. InCompanion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024. 1776–1784

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Xiaofeng Jia, Zhe Yu, Jun Shao, Rongxing Lu, Guiyi Wei, and Zhenguang Liu. 2023. Cross-chain virtual payment channels.IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security18 (2023), 3401–3413

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    V. Jose. 2020. yfinance: Yahoo Finance market data downloader. https://github.com/ranaroussi/yfinance. Accessed 2026-01-03

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Stefan Kitzler, Friedhelm Victor, Pietro Saggese, and Bernhard Haslhofer. 2023. Disentangling decentralized finance (DeFi) compositions.ACM Transactions on the Web17, 2 (2023), 1–26

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Alfred Lehar and Christine Parlour. 2025. Decentralized exchange: The uniswap automated market maker.The Journal of Finance80, 1 (2025), 321–374

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Li Li, Jiahao Wu, and Wei Cui. 2023. A review of blockchain cross-chain technology.IET Blockchain3, 3 (2023), 149–158

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Wenqing Li, Zhenguang Liu, Jianhai Chen, Zhe Liu, and Qinming He. 2025. Towards Blockchain Interoperability: A Comprehensive Survey on Cross-Chain Solutions.Blockchain: Research and Applications(2025), 100286

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    MetaMask. 2026. MetaMask Launches Bridge Aggregator in dApp. https://metamask.io/news/metamask-launches- bridge-aggregator-in-dapp-to-easily-move-tokens-across-chains. Accessed 2026-01-13

    work page 2026

  38. [38]

    Mahsa Moosavi, Mehdi Salehi, Daniel Goldman, and Jeremy Clark. 2023. Fast and furious withdrawals from optimistic rollups. In5th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT 2023). Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 22–1

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    2023.Cross-Chain Bridge Stargate’s Volume Soars As Airdrop Hunters Set Sights on LayerZero Token

    Binance News. 2023.Cross-Chain Bridge Stargate’s Volume Soars As Airdrop Hunters Set Sights on LayerZero Token. Accessed 2026-01-06

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    2023.Airdrop hunters send crypto bridge Stargate to new highs

    Defillama News. 2023.Airdrop hunters send crypto bridge Stargate to new highs. Accessed 2026-01-06

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Jakob Svennevik Notland, Jingyue Li, Mariusz Nowostawski, and Peter Halland Haro. 2025. Sok: Cross-chain bridging architectural design flaws and mitigations.Blockchain: Research and Applications(2025), 100315

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    Osmosis Labs. 2026. IBC Rate Limit Module. https://github.com/osmosis-labs/osmosis/blob/main/x/ibc-rate-limit/ README.md. Accessed 2026-01-13

    work page 2026

  43. [43]

    Burak Öz, Christof Ferreira Torres, Christoph Schlegel, Bruno Mazorra, Jonas Gebele, Filip Rezabek, and Florian Matthes. 2025. Cross-chain arbitrage: The next frontier of mev in decentralized finance.Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems9, 3 (2025), 1–33

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Babu Pillai, Jeyakumar Samantha Tharani, and Vallipuram Muthukkumarasamy. 2025. Wormhole Cross-Chain Bridge Transactions Flow: An Exploratory Study. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC). IEEE, 1–2

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Peter Robinson. 2021. Survey of crosschain communications protocols.Computer Networks200 (2021), 108488

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Peiyao Sheng, Xuechao Wang, Sreeram Kannan, Kartik Nayak, and Pramod Viswanath. 2023. Trustboost: Boosting trust among interoperable blockchains. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 1571–1584

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Shankar Subramanian, André Augusto, Rafael Belchior, André Vasconcelos, and Miguel Correia. 2024. Benchmarking blockchain bridge aggregators. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain). IEEE, 37–45

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Hangyu Tian, Kaiping Xue, Xinyi Luo, Shaohua Li, Jie Xu, Jianqing Liu, Jun Zhao, and David SL Wei. 2021. Enabling cross-chain transactions: A decentralized cryptocurrency exchange protocol.IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security16 (2021), 3928–3941

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Wormhole. 2026. WormholeScan Upgrade: Real-Time Data Analytics for the Wormhole Ecosystem. https://wormhole. com/blog/wormholescan-upgrade-real-time-data-analytics-for-the-wormhole-ecosystem. Accessed 2026-01-13

    work page 2026

  50. [50]

    Wormhole Foundation. 2026. WormholeScan API: Operations Endpoint. https://api.wormholescan.io/api/v1/operations. Accessed 2026-01-13

    work page 2026

  51. [51]

    Jiajing Wu, Kaixin Lin, Dan Lin, Bozhao Zhang, Zhiying Wu, and Jianzhong Su. 2025. Safeguarding blockchain ecosystem: Understanding and detecting attack transactions on cross-chain bridges. InProceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025. 4902–4912

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    Kailun Yan, Bo Lu, Pranav Agrawal, Jiasun Li, Wenrui Diao, and Xiaokuan Zhang. 2025. An Empirical Study on Cross-chain Transactions: Costs, Inconsistencies, and Activities. InProceedings of the 20th ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 939–954

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Lingyuan Yin, Jing Xu, and Qiang Tang. 2021. Sidechains with fast cross-chain transfers.IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing19, 6 (2021), 3925–3940

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    Knottenbelt

    Alexei Zamyatin, Mustafa Al-Bassam, Dionysis Zindros, Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias, Pedro Moreno-Sanchez, Aggelos Kiayias, and William J. Knottenbelt. 2021. SoK: Communication across distributed ledgers. InFinancial Cryptography and Data Security (FC) (LNCS, Vol. 12675). Springer, 3–36. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-64331-0_1 Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., Vo...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-64331-0_1 2021

  55. [55]

    Jiashuo Zhang, Jianbo Gao, Yue Li, Ziming Chen, Zhi Guan, and Zhong Chen. 2022. Xscope: Hunting for cross-chain bridge attacks. InProceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 1–4

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Canonical bridge

    Mengya Zhang, Xiaokuan Zhang, Yinqian Zhang, and Zhiqiang Lin. 2024. Security of cross-chain bridges: Attack surfaces, defenses, and open problems. InProceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses. 298–316. A Dune-Based Extraction Details Dune is used as the primary on-chain measurement back-end for (i) cha...

    work page 2024