KEYTAKEAWAYS
-
Cross-chain protocols are splitting into three clear models — asset bridges, messaging layers, and relay networks — each with different revenue paths and token value capture.
-
Giants like Wormhole and LayerZero dominate in scale but are still waiting for governance to unlock fee switches, while deBridge already channels real revenue into buybacks.
-
Market caps often misalign with fundamentals: some tokens are priced on narratives alone, while others like DBR show strong cash flow with low P/S ratios.
CONTENT
FROM MULTICHAIN’S COLLAPSE TO THE RISE OF WORMHOLE AND LAYERZERO
Cross-chain protocols were once seen as the backbone of blockchain connectivity: move assets and data seamlessly across chains, and capture the growth of the entire ecosystem. Between 2019 and 2021, Multichain (formerly AnySwap) became almost synonymous with cross-chain bridges, with TVL surpassing $15 billion. But the 2023 security meltdown revealed a harsh truth: no matter the size, if governance and safety collapse, billions can vanish overnight. Multichain’s core team disappeared, funds were lost, and trust in the sector was shattered.
The demand, however, did not fade. Instead, it fueled a new generation of infrastructure. Wormhole, with its guardian network and broad chain coverage, quickly absorbed much of the Solana–Ethereum flow. LayerZero, with its “configurable security” and ultra-light node design, won adoption from DeFi and stablecoin projects, integrating over 100 chains within two years and handling nearly half of industry traffic. Meanwhile, Axelar and deBridge positioned themselves as “cross-chain operating systems,” offering validator networks and liquidity routing.
By early 2025, cross-chain volumes were breaking records: in November 2024, monthly flows exceeded $50 billion, nearly doubling from the previous month. Demand for moving capital across ecosystems is unstoppable. The real question is: among these massive flows, who is actually making money — and which tokens truly capture that value?
THREE TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS PATHS
Cross-chain projects generally fall into three categories.
The first is asset bridges. They use lock-and-mint mechanisms or liquidity pools. Wormhole, Stargate, Synapse, Across, and Celer all belong here. Users deposit on chain A, withdraw on chain B, with security handled by multi-sigs or optimistic proofs. To stay competitive, most fees are paid to LPs and relayers, leaving almost nothing at the protocol level. Tokens serve mainly for governance and incentives, without a sustainable value anchor.
The second is messaging protocols. They focus on passing arbitrary messages, with asset transfers only one use case. LayerZero and Hyperlane are leaders. Each cross-chain call requires paying oracles and relayers, creating natural revenue streams that, in theory, can be directed into treasuries for buybacks or burns.
The third is relay networks. These operate their own validator sets to manage cross-chain communication, using PoS or multi-signature consensus. Axelar and deBridge are the main examples. They function like a “cross-chain Ethereum,” where users pay native fees that are distributed to validators. This model is more secure and monetizable, but only works if inflation and fee revenue stay in balance.
In short: the security model determines whether fees are possible, the business model determines whether they are actually charged, and tokenomics determines whether those fees return to the token.
CASE STUDIES: WHO EARNS, WHO TELLS STORIES, WHO IS POISED TO SHIFT
Looking at the leading protocols through the lens of revenue, market cap, and token capture, three groups emerge.
The first group is cash-flow positive with a clear value loop. deBridge is the standout. Its DLN uses on-demand liquidity, avoiding huge idle TVL. Every transaction charges a fee, and 100% is used to buy back DBR. Validators and stakers share in the revenue. In 2024, deBridge generated annualized revenue above $15 million, while its market cap was only $86 million. That puts its P/S in single digits — a rarity in this sector.
The second group is dominant in scale but waiting for value capture. Wormhole holds $3 billion in TVL and billions in monthly volume. With W 2.0, fees now flow into its treasury for buybacks and staking rewards, finally linking traffic with token value. LayerZero’s usage is even greater, with 4.1 million cross-chain messages in Q4 2024. But ZRO has not yet activated its fee switch, so all payments still go to oracles and relayers. Once governance flips the switch, ZRO will turn network usage into burn pressure. These giants are on the verge of change: scale is there, but value capture has yet to click in.
The third group is large in volume but with near-zero protocol retention. Stargate has processed more than $70 billion in total, yet its annual protocol revenue is under $600k, against a $167m market cap, giving it a P/S of over 280. Synapse has collected $30m in fees but handed all of it to LPs, leaving SYN without capture; its market cap collapsed from $1b to $30m. Across and Celer also prioritize growth with subsidies, generating little to no retained revenue. Axelar sits in between: it has a PoS network and fee logic, but annual revenue is ~$1m while inflation mints tens of millions of tokens, diluting value.
The conclusion is clear: volume does not equal business quality — cash flow does. The divide is no longer about how many chains you bridge, but whether fees recycle back to the token.
INVESTMENT AND FUTURE ROADMAP
To evaluate long-term projects, three simple questions matter.
First, fees: does the protocol already charge, or have a clear path to start? Is the rate aligned with its security model? Second, treasury: do those fees flow into a treasury? Is it transparent and committed to buybacks or distribution? Third, token: can holders actually capture value — through staking, revenue share, or real burn?
When applied to this sector, the answers separate winners from laggards. deBridge has already checked all three boxes. Wormhole and LayerZero have clear plans but depend on governance switches. Stargate, Synapse, Across, and Celer have yet to close the loop.
Catalysts are obvious: fee switches going live, treasury buybacks executed, staking rewards paid out. Risks are equally clear: governance delays, inflation imbalances, subsidy exhaustion, or security failures.
Looking forward, two paths emerge. Some protocols, like LayerZero and deBridge, may set the standard, combining scale with cash flow. Others, like Stargate and Synapse, may be folded into larger ecosystems, with their own tokens sidelined. Capital will shift from “chasing volume” to “chasing revenue.” The second half of cross-chain is not about who shows bigger numbers, but about who can turn every transfer into lasting value for the token.
