Back to collectionBridge lifecycle analysis: custody, migration and exit
Historical bridge examples distinguish expanding routes from dependable recovery.
The historical comparison describes Multichain’s warning about MPC-held assets moving to unknown addresses and Stargate’s June 30 Fantom V1 sunset. It does not establish a year for that deadline or a current recovery status, so neither should be read as a fresh incident or present service instruction. The underlying distinction remains useful: an interface that loads is not evidence that custody is intact or an old withdrawal route is still supported.
Other reported examples describe Hop moving USDC bridging toward Circle CCTP and V1 incentives toward V2; Router extending native BTC, wrapped BTC and stablecoin paths across more than eleven chains and adding a Tempo payment route; and THORChain recording $950,000 in fees in its first full month after swaps resumed against $173 million over five years. These describe different periods and changes, not synchronized launches or comparable profit figures. Route version, asset form, custody model and an identifiable exit matter more than the number of advertised connections.