DeFi has expanded beyond single blockchains today; users often want to trade assets across multiple chains. However, trading across chains has historically been tiring and risky. The usual solution has been cross-chain bridges, which let you transfer tokens from one blockchain to another. In practice, this often means locking your asset on Chain A and minting a “wrapped” version on Chain B. Unfortunately, these bridges have become failures. In 2022, cross-chain bridge hacks accounted for roughly 69% of all crypto stolen, with over $2 billion in losses. High-profile incidents like the Ronin bridge hack ($600M lost) and Wormhole exploit ($300M lost) underscore how devastating bridge failures can be (Crypto Bridge Nomad Drained of Nearly $200M in Exploit).

Beyond hacks, users have also struggled with slow, multi-step bridge processes that sometimes require manual claims to retrieve funds. In this blog post, we will explore how Mettalex is tackling these challenges of cross-chain trading, especially bridge failures and tedious manual claims, and why its approach marks a paradigm shift in DeFi.

Understanding Bridge Failures and Manual Claims

Cross-chain bridges are meant to connect different blockchain ecosystems. The core idea is simple: you send your tokens to a bridge on the source chain, and an equivalent token is released or minted for you on the destination chain. For example, if you bridge Ether (ETH) from Ethereum to Solana via Wormhole, the bridge locks your ETH on the Ethereum Chain and gives you “Wormhole-wrapped ETH” on Solana backed by the locked funds. This lock-and-mint mechanism (or sometimes burn-and-release) enables cross-chain liquidity but also concentrates risk.

Bridges typically involve a central contract or custodian holding large amounts of funds, which becomes a lucrative target for attackers. If that honeypot is compromised, the bridge “fails,” meaning the backing funds are stolen or irretrievable, and the wrapped tokens become worthless. Sadly, this has happened repeatedly in DeFi. For instance, the Nomad bridge was drained of nearly $190M in a chaotic exploit in 2022, and the collapse of the Harmony Horizon bridge ($100M hack) and Poly Network ($600M hack) are other infamous examples. Even when bridges aren’t hacked, bugs or validator failures can cause funds to get stuck in limbo, requiring users to jump through hoops to recover them.

Another pain point is the manual effort often required in cross-chain transfers. With many bridges, moving assets isn’t one-click magic; it’s a multi-step process prone to user error. You might deposit tokens to a bridge contract, wait for confirmations, and then manually claim or release the asset on the target chain. If you forget the final claim step or the process times out, your funds could remain stuck until you intervene. Even “automated” bridges can require manual recovery if something goes wrong. For example, if a bridging transaction fails halfway, users may need to submit a claim or contact support to retrieve their original tokens. This clunky user experience of babysitting your transfer and possibly executing extra transactions is far from the seamless ideal that DeFi users want.

In summary, bridge failures (whether from hacks or technical issues) and manual claims processes have made cross-chain trading risky and inconvenient. The industry knows these are major pain points, and several projects have taken different approaches to address them.

What Others Are Doing? (Rainbow Bridge, Thorchain, etc.)

Given the challenges above, it’s no surprise that many teams have been exploring alternative designs for cross-chain swaps and transfers. Each approach tackles the problem differently:

• Rainbow Bridge (NEAR ↔ Ethereum) – The Rainbow Bridge is often cited as a trustless bridge solution. Instead of a central custodian, it uses on-chain light clients and relayers on NEAR and Ethereum to verify transactions from the other chain. In simple terms, each side of the bridge runs a miniature copy of the different blockchain’s consensus (or at least enough to verify proofs). This means the bridge doesn’t rely on a third-party multi-sig. The chains enforce correctness. Notably, Rainbow Bridge’s design has proven resilient. In mid-2022, an attacker attempted to exploit Rainbow Bridge by submitting a fraudulent NEAR block. Still, the bridge’s validation system automatically detected and thwarted the attempt, causing the attacker to lose their bond (and money). This was a win for trustless design. However, the trade-off is complexity: running light clients on-chain can be resource-intensive, and users still have to wait through finality periods (e.g., Ethereum confirmations) for the cross-chain transfer to complete. While Rainbow Bridge avoids custodial risk, users might still face delays and need to initiate the final step of a transfer (e.g., unlocking tokens on the target chain) through the UI, which, if not handled, feels like a manual claim process.
  
  

• Thorchain – Thorchain takes a very different route by creating a decentralized cross-chain liquidity network. It operates its own blockchain (powered by the RUNE token) and a network of nodes collectively managing assets in vaults on different chains. When you swap an asset from Chain A to Chain B using Thorchain, you’re effectively trading via Thorchain’s liquidity pools: deposit asset X on Chain A into the Thorchain vault and withdraw asset Y on Chain B from the vault, with RUNE acting as the settlement intermediary under the hood. The upside is there are no wrapped tokens, you receive native assets on the destination chain, and the process is non-custodial (secured by many independent Thorchain nodes rather than a single bridge contract). This model avoids some pitfalls of traditional bridges but introduces others: it relies on the economic security of the Thorchain network and its liquidity pools. Low liquidity can lead to high slippage, and the complexity of managing a multi-chain state has led to bugs before. Thorchain’s approach is innovative using a protocol-controlled vault to swap L1 assets directly.yet it still requires users to trust that the protocol’s code (and nodes) will execute as expected. If something goes wrong, as with any liquidity pool, users could lose funds and have to wait for the team/community to recover or reimburse, essentially a manual process after the fact.
  
  

• Newer Approaches (e.g., Storage Proofs) – Beyond the above, cutting-edge solutions are in development to make cross-chain activity safer. One notable concept is storage proofs, which are being pioneered on platforms like Starknet. Storage proofs use cryptography (succinct proofs) to let one blockchain verify state (like asset ownership) on another blockchain directly, without relaying through a third party. This approach is still emerging, but it reflects a broader theme: the industry is searching for ways to remove the “third party” from cross-chain transfers, whether that third party is a custodial multi-sig, a liquidity provider, or an external validator network. Rainbow Bridge did it with light clients; Thorchain did it with a decentralized network; storage proofs aim to do it with pure math. Each has its pros and cons in practice, from speed to cost to complexity, but all are attempts to solve the same core issues of bridge failures and manual intervention.

Despite all these efforts, no solution has been perfect. Many “trustless” designs still face usability issues, and many fast, user-friendly bridges have had to sacrifice some security or decentralization. This is the backdrop against which Mettalex is introducing its cross-chain trading solution. Mettalex’s approach draws inspiration from the successes and failures of previous designs, resulting in a system that avoids bridges entirely and eliminates the usual friction points.

How Mettalex Is Changing This Whole Paradigm

Mettalex takes a bold stance: no bridges, no wrapped tokens, no liquidity pools. Instead, it uses an agent-based peer-to-peer (P2P) network to facilitate direct cross-chain swaps. In simple terms, Mettalex replaces the “bridge” with a pair of intelligent agents that represent the traders on each chain. Here’s how it works and why it’s different:

• Direct P2P Cross-Chain Swaps: Let’s say a user wants to swap Token X on Chain A for Token Y on Chain B, and another user wants the opposite. With Mettalex, they don’t have to send their tokens to any bridges or pools. Instead, they place an order on the Mettalex platform by locking their tokens in escrow contracts. An agent finds the matching order from the other user on Chain B through Mettalex’s agent network. Once a match is found, the escrow contracts are released.These escrow contracts act as decentralized safes, governed by smart contracts. Token X is locked on Chain A, and Token Y is locked on Chain B, with the condition that they will only be released to the other party if the swap completes successfully. Neither party takes custody of the other’s funds until the swap is finalized, ensuring trust and eliminating the risk of fraud.
  
  

• No Custodial Bridges or Wrappers: Unlike a conventional bridge, there is no single contract holding all users’ funds and no minting of “wrapped” tokens. Each trade creates its own isolated escrow on each chain. This means there’s no massive honeypot of pooled assets to attract hackers and no need to trust a third-party custodian. The agents communicating across chains coordinate the swap: once both sides are locked, the Mettalex agents trigger the exchange, instructing the escrow on Chain A to release Token X and the escrow on Chain B to release Token Y.The result is that the user on Chain A ends up with Token Y on Chain B, and the user on Chain B ends up with Token X on Chain A, completing the cross-chain trade. It’s as if they directly traded with each other, even though they were on different networks. Throughout this process, Mettalex never issues a placeholder token or takes control of user funds centrally. The swap is P2P and atomic (either fully completed or reverted).
  
  

• Eliminating Manual Claims: In the Mettalex design, Users don’t have to hop through multiple swaps or come back later to claim funds; the agents handle the cross-chain communication in real time. There’s no “claim your bridged tokens” step; if a trade is matched and executed, you receive the target asset in your wallet on the other chain. If something goes wrong, you retain your original asset. The system is autonomous and doesn’t require the user to monitor or manually finalize the transfer. For users, that means a more seamless, human-friendly process.
  
  

  

  
  Want to see it in action? Visit https://mettalex.com or try a demo cross-chain swap today.