A Comparison Between Different Bridges in the Ethereum Ecosystem
No bridge is the fastest, cheapest, and most secure simultaneously. Today, we are evaluating different bridge protocols similar to Beamer to hopefully help you find your “forever bridge!”
Ethereum’s Layer 2 (L2) scaling solutions, such as rollups, offer several advantages, including increased transaction speed and lower costs. However, these L2 chains struggle with intercommunication. Blockchain bridges solve this problem by facilitating asset and data transfers between chains, ensuring compatibility.
But not all bridges are created equal. There are over 30 bridges in the blockchain landscape, accounting for a total TVL (Total Value Locked) of $5.63 billion. These bridges aid users in transferring tokens from Layer 1 (L1) to Layer 2 (L2) and from one L1 to another. Some of these bridges are secure and inexpensive, but transfers might take hours. Conversely, others are cheap and swift, but they lack decentralization. There are also bridge aggregators, such as Li.Fi, that can help you explore the different bridges. But how does one understand what factors to consider when selecting their ideal bridge? We hope this article can help you answer that.
But first, if you are new here, let us tell you about Beamer.
What exactly is Beamer?
The Beamer Bridge is a novel protocol that streamlines the transfer of ERC20 assets between various L2 rollups and even between rollups and the Ethereum blockchain.
Our pledge to users
The Beamer Bridge gives top priority to speed, security and user-friendliness. It seamlessly handles transfers by matching users with liquidity providers as fast as possible.
Users only need deposit their assets on the source rollup, and the Beamer agents will take care of providing the needed liquidity on the target rollup.
In the event of disputes, the protocol uses the L1 state to ensure accurate resolution. This means that Beamer fully relies on Ethereum’s security mechanisms; it does not introduce new trust assumptions.
Which Bridges Are We Comparing?
We will evaluate bridge protocols that offer features similar to those of the Beamer Bridge. These protocols share critical traits, such as being generalized, part of a liquidity network, trustless, and offering comprehensive connectivity.
Generalized bridges are protocols designed to transfer assets and information across multiple blockchains. These bridges provide scalability, flexibility, and superior network effects by enabling users to execute various types of transfers through a single bridge.
Liquidity Network (LN) bridges have their unique benefits. They leverage the security of the underlying blockchain, prohibit liquidity providers from accessing user funds, and safeguard substantial transfers by equipping users with native assets on the target chain. This eliminates reliance on wrapped or derivative assets that lack full fungibility.
Trustless bridges remove the need for additional trust assumptions. In the case of Ethereum, trustless bridges align their core security model with the underlying blockchain, ETH, making them more superior to bridges with alternative security models with additional security assumptions. For example, bridges that also transfer assets from ETH to other non-EVM compatible blockchains often require additional trust assumptions, thus making these models vulnerable to theft by malicious actors or are contingent on users’ trust in the bridge.
Connectivity is an essential criterion for users. If a bridge does not support the desired assets or connections to the user’s preferred L2, it may be deemed unsatisfactory. This is irrespective of its interface or security features. Users are unlikely to utilize it if they cannot reach their intended destination.
We will compare Beamer, Across, Celer, Connext, Hop, and Orbiter bridges. To standardize our comparison, we’ll focus on the holy trinity in the bridging space: security, speed, and cost.
Security and Risk Factors of Different Bridge Architectures
Message Verification Methods
Message verification is pivotal for ensuring secure asset transfers across various networks. The two primary methods are local verification and external verification. Local verification, utilized by protocols such as Across Protocol and Beamer Bridge, involves reciprocal approvals between parties, thereby ensuring trustless and secure transactions. Conversely, external verification, used by protocols like Celer cBridge and Orbiter, depends on external networks or parties to authenticate legitimacy and ownership. Although external verification provides a metadata repository, enhancing performance, it necessitates trust in the bridge operators.
Both locally and externally verified bridge protocols significantly guarantee secure asset transfers. Local verification means that the parties involved check and approve transactions among themselves, reducing the need for outside third parties. On the other hand, external verification uses other networks or individuals outside for approval. This can provide extra confirmation and increased availability of information. However, it also introduces the need for trust, as users are compelled to depend on the reputation and reliability of the bridge operators.
In essence, message verification methods, encompassing local and external verification, are crucial for the secure transfer of assets between networks. Each method has its merits and considerations, with local verification facilitating direct trustless transactions and external verification presenting potential benefits through validation from external networks.
Understanding Risks
The comprehension of risk parameters is critical for guaranteeing the safety and dependability of L2 bridge protocols. These risks encompass potential asset theft, loss or freezing, and the possibility of user censorship.
The risk of asset theft can occur if the protocol mismanages funds, allowing unauthorized access. Asset loss risk can be due to user errors, such as selecting the incorrect address or chain.
Asset freezing can occur during transfers, where assets are temporarily immobilized, possibly due to processing delays, suspicion of fraudulent activities, or regulatory concerns.
User censorship transpires when a network node can reject transactions, potentially leading to network centralization.
Decentralized vs Centralized: Bridge protocols can be either centralized, under the control of a single entity, or decentralized, with shared control distributed amongst multiple users.
By understanding these risks, bridge protocols can enhance security, safeguard assets, and prevent transfer complications.
Transaction Speeds of the Different Bridges
The speed of asset bridging is a crucial aspect that determines the efficiency and user experience within the DeFi sphere:
Trading and Arbitrage: Speed is instrumental in capitalizing on fleeting trading and arbitrage opportunities that arise from price disparities across various platforms or layers.
Handling Price Volatility: Given the high volatility of cryptocurrencies, rapid bridging can help reduce potential losses during price fluctuations that occur during the bridging process.
User Experience: A swift bridging process enhances the user experience, enticing more users to interact with DeFi platforms.
Competitive Advantage: DeFi platforms can attract more users and a higher transaction volume by providing faster bridging, resulting in a more vibrant ecosystem.
Beamer ranks as the fastest out of the six bridges we’ve compared.
You can find video comparisons of Beamer and other bridges in terms of speed on our Twitter
Whether it's from L1 to L2 or cross-rollup, Beamer is the clear winner when it comes to speed. Below is a range of times it takes for the 6 bridges to transfer assets.
Transaction and Service Costs of Bridges
To comprehend how bridging costs operate, it’s crucial to analyze the three components of every transaction: the assets, transaction costs, and service fees.
Assets: When shifting assets between L2s, the token the user sends will be received in the recipient’s account as the same token that was dispatched. For instance, if you transfer USDC using Beamer Bridge, the recipient will obtain USDC. It’s important to note that while Beamer Bridge solely facilitates identical asset transfers, while others like Connext offers asset swap capabilities.
Transaction Costs: Each time a user conducts a transaction, they incur a cost, referred to as a gas fee. This fee is always charged in the base token of the user’s selected L2 platform. For instance, if a user executes a transaction on the Arbitrum rollup, they’ll incur a gas fee in Arbitrum ETH.
Service Fees: These comprise various costs associated with using the bridge service. They include:
- The bridge fee for utilizing the service
- Conversion fees, if applicable
- Liquidity provider (LP) fees for offering the required liquidity
- Bonder fees for the individuals or entities that facilitate the bridging process
- Reimbursement of bridge gas, a fee that compensates LPs for processing transactions on the receiving L2.
Fees on Beamer
At Beamer, we prioritize clarity in our fee structure: a standard fee of 0.3% on your transfer amount.
Nonetheless, for smaller transfer amounts, a minimum fee is calculated based on your specific request parameters to ensure our agents can adequately cover all costs associated with their service on Beamer.
Every time agents process a transfer request from users, they cover these three operating costs:
- Fulfilling the request on the target rollup
- Claiming the filled request on the source rollup
- Withdrawing funds on the source rollup
Minimum fees may vary depending on your chosen source and target rollups/ETH L1. We encourage you to explore our detailed explanation in our documentation for a thorough understanding of our fees and structure.
Fees Comparison
Among the six bridge protocols compared, Beamer Bridge proves to be the fastest for moving assets between rollups. Although Beamer Bridge offers rapid and cost-efficient transactions, its fees for small-volume transactions may seem high relative to the transaction value.
This setup serves as a protective measure against protocol spamming and yet encourages agents to process small-volume transactions too. Asset transfer fees differ among protocols and are deducted from the sent amount. For instance, the Orbiter protocol applies a withholding fee on the transferred assets and deducts an additional fee from the received amount. In contrast, Beamer Bridge guarantees that recipients obtain the requested amount, simplifying the process by eliminating the need for complex subtotaling for each transfer protocol.
In Conclusion
In conclusion, the diverse range of blockchain bridges offers users various options for transferring assets between Ethereum L1 and EVM-compatible rollups. Notably, no single bridge protocol can claim superiority in all facets, simultaneously being the fastest, most secure, and cheapest.
Each has unique strengths, and choosing a ‘forever bridge’ ultimately depends on the individual user’s priorities and needs.
We prioritize speed and security for Beamer, focusing on delivering a premium user experience when bridging assets across L1 and EVM-compatible rollups. This commitment emphasizes the heart of decentralization — empowering users to make choices that best align with their requirements within the multifaceted and continuously evolving blockchain ecosystem.
We hope this article has helped equip readers with a solid foundation of knowledge to guide their decision-making when choosing the bridge protocol that best meets their needs and objectives. However, hands-on experience often provides the deepest understanding. Hence, we encourage you to explore bridge aggregators like Li.Fi, allowing you to experiment with various bridge protocols, fostering a more comprehensive understanding of their unique attributes.
Get Involved
Thank you to our amazing community, the BeamFam, that helped us get this far already. Together let’s make Beamer the simplest, fastest and most secure optimistic bridge in the Ethereum Ecosystem!
Users
If you want a seamless and effortless L1/L2 bridging experience:
- Use Beamer to bridge USDC/DAI across rollups and between L1 and L2
- Leave feedback in our Discord
- Follow us on Twitter and join our Discord to stay updated
Developers
If you want to contribute to building up the Beamer ecosystem:
- Get in touch with us on Discord and follow us on Twitter
- Start contributing to our open source code base on GitHub (e.g. add new token support in a few clicks)
- Apply to run your own agent providing liquidity to Beamer: hello@beamerbridge.com
Protocols/dApps
If you are interested in using Beamer for your protocol and dApps:
- Follow us on Twitter and join our Discord
- Open a ‘Partnership Request 🤝’ ticket on Discord
- Or email us at: hello@beamerbridge.com
Join The Beam Team
We are always looking for new team members, check out our recruitment page to see open opportunities.
We are looking forward to hearing from you. Stay safe!
Your Beam team 🖖
_________________
About Beamer
Beamer is a free open source software development project by brainbot gmbh. The project consists of a smart contract protocol, an online user interface, and agent software. Our documentation is available here.
