Buy
CoinGape has been covering cryptocurrency and blockchain markets since 2017. Our editorial team evaluates projects and platforms using structured review frameworks focused on transparency, utility, and risk assessment. You can explore our review methodologies to see how we assess and rate different categories. We maintain clear editorial standards and disclose advertising or affiliate relationships where applicable.
Crypto has clearly become a multichain industry, but moving between those chains is still more complicated than it should be.
Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana and other major networks operate independently. They have their own rules, assets and settlement systems, and they were not built to communicate directly with one another. That creates a problem: owning assets across multiple chains is easy, but exchanging them directly is not.
The most common solution users implemented for this problem was using a centralized exchange. They deposited BTC, traded it for ETH, and withdrew it to their new wallet. The process was, and still is, straightforward. The trade-off is that someone else has the custody of the assets, an intermediary.
With DeFi came different ways to move value between networks, namely bridges and wrapped assets. They opened users’ horizons, as they could do more with their assets on different networks. The trade-off here is a complex infrastructure that newcomers have a hard time grasping.
Native cross-chain swaps are a totally different route.
Wrapped assets are an important step in making crypto interoperable. Native Bitcoin cannot be moved onto Ethereum because the two networks are fundamentally separate. Instead, Bitcoin can be represented by another token on Ethereum.
That allows BTC-related liquidity to participate in Ethereum-based DeFi, but the user is no longer interacting with native Bitcoin, just a representation of it. Depending on how that representation is created, additional trust assumptions may be introduced through custodians, bridges, smart contracts or other infrastructure.
For many use cases, that tradeoff is acceptable. If someone specifically wants Bitcoin exposure inside an Ethereum application, a wrapped asset can make sense. But if the goal is to exchange BTC for ETH, wrapping Bitcoin first adds steps that may not be necessary.
When it comes to native cross-chain swaps, users get to swap assets that are on different blockchains without having to transform them into their wrapped versions.
Here is a simple example.
BTC → ETH
When a user starts with Bitcoin on the Bitcoin network and receives ETH on Ethereum, native cross-chain does not force both assets to be on the same network. It establishes an exchange infrastructure between the two networks, between the Bitcoin and Ethereum network.
This model exists thanks to THORChain, a decentralized exchange that focuses on native cross-chain swaps.
Through pools, THORChain connects liquidity across supported networks. RUNE, the native crypto of THORChain, is instrumental for this connection, acting as the common settlement asset among those pools. As a result, while the BTC to RUNE and RUNE to ETH swaps happen in the background, users don’t need to hold RUNE at any moment. They see a simple transaction, from BTC to ETH.
The speciality of this approach is that it does not remove the infrastructure layer. What it removes is the burden of using wrapped assets or a centralized exchange. That burden is taken by the protocol in the background. And in the foreground, users enjoy seamless exchange.
Secondly, it enhances how decentralized exchanges can look.
Most traditional DEXs have been limited to a single blockchain. Solana-based tokens could only be traded against Solana-based tokens, and other smart contracts are limited in the same way. Native cross-chain liquidity extends that model beyond one blockchain. Bitcoin can remain Bitcoin. ETH can remain ETH. The exchange happens between the networks rather than by recreating one asset inside the other.
That does not make native cross-chain swaps automatically better than every alternative. Liquidity remains one of the biggest considerations.
Like other automated market makers, cross-chain liquidity pools can experience slippage when a trade is large relative to the available liquidity. Network fees and confirmation times can also change depending on which chains are involved in the transaction.
Then there are protocol risks. While a DEX enforces self-custody, it still relies on software, node infrastructure, economic incentives, and unique mechanisms to keep an asset secure. Switching from centralized to DEX changes the venue that risks come from; it does not remove the risks.
Therefore, whether it is a bridge or a centralized exchange, wrapped asset or native swaps, all will exist alongside one another. Each solves a different problem.
The broader issue is that crypto does not appear to be converging around a single blockchain. Bitcoin continues to serve a different role from Ethereum. Other networks have developed their own applications, communities and markets.
As long as that remains true, liquidity will remain fragmented across chains. The question is what that cross-chain infrastructure should look like. Centralized exchanges provide one answer. Bridges and wrapped assets provide another.
Protocols such as THORChain are a new approach: creating liquidity infrastructure that allows native assets on independent blockchains to be exchanged without first forcing them onto the same network.
That will not remove every friction point in a multichain market. But it addresses one of crypto’s oldest problems: connecting assets that were never designed to interact in the first place.
2M+ Monthly Readers
50k+ Articles
