The problem
Bridge hacks
$2B+ stolen since 2021. 13 major bridge hacks in 2022 alone. The common pattern: a pooled honeypot sitting behind a multisig or validator set becomes a single point of failure. When it falls, every user is drained together.
Custodial control
Most bridges require you to hand your assets to a third party that controls both issuance and release. Your exposure is whatever that custodian’s worst day looks like — a compromised key, a malicious operator, a bug in the release logic.
Slow finality
Traditional designs wait for multi-validator consensus on each transfer, require confirmations on both the source and destination chains, and rely on external relayers to submit proofs. Users wait hours for finality, and they pay for every step.
Source: Chainalysis Blog, 2022-08-02 — “Vulnerabilities in Cross-chain Bridge Protocols Emerge as Top Security Risk.”
The ProofBridge solution
ProofBridge inverts the model. Instead of a central operator bearing all the risk, every trade is a direct peer-to-peer match between a Maker (liquidity provider) and a Bridger (user). Settlement is enforced by ZK proofs of each party’s deposit, not by a trusted validator set.User-facing security
Each user holds their own asset boundary. There is no pooled vault to compromise, no multisig that can unlock everyone’s funds. If a single account is compromised, the breach stays isolated to that user. The rest of the protocol continues running without interruption. This is the principle blockchains were built on: you are responsible for your own keys, and your security does not depend on anyone else’s.Explicit dual authorization
Every fund release requires on-chain consent from both the Maker and the Bridger. Liquidity providers keep full control over their capital even while it sits in an open ad — the protocol itself has no unilateral authority to move or redirect those funds. Assets cannot be touched without both parties signing off.Peer consensus, not validator consensus
The end-state design of ProofBridge uses BLS signature aggregation between the Maker and Bridger, combined with ZK proofs of each deposit. The trade settles because the two counterparties directly agreed and the proofs check out — not because a committee of external validators reached consensus on their behalf. The result: lower cost, faster settlement, and nothing waiting on a validator quorum that may or may not be online.ProofBridge is currently in its pre-authorization (stateful relayer) phase to bootstrap trust during early testnet. The BLS end-state is the next milestone on the roadmap. The relayer’s role shrinks as BLS aggregation comes online.
How ProofBridge compares
User controls assets always
No protocol-level custody. Funds live in your own order or ad contract, not a shared pool.
No external validators
Settlement uses the signatures of the two parties on the trade, not a third-party validator set.
Proof-verified deposits
Each transfer includes a ZK proof that the counterparty’s deposit is genuinely recorded on-chain.
Faster settlement
No multi-round validator consensus. Trades settle as soon as both deposits are proven.
Where to go next
How it works
The architecture, 12-step cross-chain flow, and the role each contract plays.
Quickstart
Connect a wallet and run your first transfer on testnet.
Roadmap
The path from pre-auth relayer to BLS aggregation and the AI automation layer.
Security model
Trust assumptions, replay prevention, and how the protocol enforces settlement.