• Blockchain bridges are a major attack vector, with billions of dollars lost due to hacks caused by false trust assumptions and centralized design.

• Modular interoperability addresses this issue by allowing native, secure, and scalable cross-chain communication without relying on fragile bridges.

The multichain future promises seamless interaction between different blockchain networks. Yet, what we have is a range of vulnerable bridges that have become prime targets for hackers in the crypto world. As someone who has spent years building distributed systems handling billions of dollars in value, I have witnessed this issue evolve from mere theoretical concern to a $2.8 billion nightmare.

Cross-chain bridges have been hacked for over $2.8 billion — representing nearly 40% of the total value hacked in Web3, and this issue is not improving. However, here’s the thing: bridge hacks are not an inevitable part of the multichain future. These hacks are symptoms of a flawed approach to interoperability that treats cross-chain communication as an afterthought rather than fundamental infrastructure.

The real solution is not better bridges — but completely eliminating the need for bridges through modular interoperability. Let me explain why this matters and how we can build a truly secure multichain ecosystem.

Why Blockchain Bridges Keep Getting Hacked

Let’s start with the unpleasant truth: blockchain bridges are fundamentally vulnerable because they are built on fundamentally flawed assumptions about trust and security. Every major bridge hack follows a predictable pattern — they create centralized points of failure in systems that are supposed to be decentralized.

Take the example of the Ronin Bridge hack, which still stands as one of the largest hacks in crypto history. The biggest hack impacted the Axie Infinity Ronin Bridge, with losses of nearly $600 million USD. The attackers did not need to break advanced cryptography or exploit zero-day vulnerabilities. They simply compromised enough validator keys to control the bridge — a classic case of centralized control wrapped in decentralization.

The same pattern repeated in Wormhole, where hackers exploited a signature verification gap to steal $236 million. The attackers were able to bypass signature verification by exploiting outdated and insecure functions in the code. Again, the vulnerability lies not in the underlying blockchain technology, but in the centralized validation mechanisms of the bridge.

Recently, we saw this continue with incidents such as the Orbit Chain exploit, where Orbit Chain, a cross-chain bridge project, lost over $80 million in a bridge hack that could have been prevented. This hack followed the same strategy: exploiting centralized control mechanisms to drain funds.

This is not an isolated incident or a sophisticated attack — it is a predictable outcome of architectural choices that prioritize speed to market over foundational security.

The Problem with Current Bridge-Centric Interoperability

This is what most people do not understand about blockchain bridges: these bridges are not native infrastructure. They are external add-ons that attempt to solve interoperability after the construction is complete, like trying to renovate a house with plumbing after the walls are already built.

Traditional bridges work by creating wrapped tokens and relying on trusted intermediaries to maintain the peg between the native asset and the wrapped asset. This creates several fundamental issues:

Centralized Trust Assumptions: Most bridges require users to trust a small group of validators or multisig wallets controlled by a few parties. This directly undermines the decentralized security model that has made blockchain valuable from the start.

The Impossibility of Atomic Transactions: When you transfer assets cross-chain using a bridge, you cannot guarantee atomicity. Transactions may succeed on one chain but fail on another, leaving your assets in limbo.

Liquidity Fragmentation: Bridges create synthetic versions of an asset, breaking liquidity into multiple wrapped representations of the same underlying value.

Surface Attack Multiplication: Each bridge adds new smart contracts, new validation mechanisms, and new potential points of failure. Cross-chain bridges and vault systems remain the most exploited components of DeFi, with billions of dollars lost due to private key theft and contract manipulation in 2025.

At Altius Labs, we have witnessed firsthand how these limitations constrain what developers can create. When developers have to think about bridge reliability, wrapped token mechanics, and cross-chain transaction coordination, they spend more time building infrastructure than building innovative applications.

Modular Interoperability, Explained

Modular interoperability represents a fundamental shift in how we view cross-chain communication. Rather than treating interoperability as something added on top of existing blockchains, modular systems build it into their foundations.

Imagine the difference between connecting two houses with a rickety rope bridge versus building them on the same foundation from the start. Modular Chains are blockchain systems designed with modular architecture, allowing for greater flexibility, scalability, and interoperability.

In a modular architecture, different blockchains can share the same layers while retaining their unique characteristics. This enables native cross-chain communication without the need for trusted intermediaries or wrapped tokens. Assets can move across chains with the same security assurances as single-chain transactions.

The main insight is that interoperability is not a feature you add — it is a property that emerges from proper architectural design. When chains share the same standards for execution, consensus, or data availability, they can communicate natively without requiring bridge contracts or external validators.

How Modular Interoperability Addresses Bridge Vulnerabilities

Modular interoperability addresses bridge vulnerabilities by eliminating their root causes instead of patching the symptoms. Here’s how:

Elimination of Trusted Intermediaries: In a modular system, cross-chain transactions do not require bridge operators or external validators. Security comes from the blockchain protocol itself, not from additional trust assumptions.

Movement of Native Assets: Instead of creating wrapped tokens, modular interoperability allows the movement of native assets across chains. Your ETH remains ETH, regardless of the chain it is on, thus eliminating the complexities and risks associated with token wrapping.

Atomic Cross-Chain Transactions: Modular systems can provide atomic transaction guarantees across chains, ensuring that cross-chain operations either fully succeed or completely fail — no more funds stuck in uncertainty.

Shared Security Model: When chains share a common security infrastructure, they can provide the same security assurances for cross-chain transactions as they do for single-chain transactions.

The technical implementations vary, but the principles remain consistent: instead of building bridges between isolated systems, we build interconnected systems that do not require bridges.

Traditional Bridges vs. Modular Interoperability: Wrapped tokens and synthetic assets vs. movement of native assets; requires trusted intermediaries vs. no external trust assumptions; fragmented liquidity vs. unified liquidity pools; complex failure modes vs. simplified security models; bolt-on solutions vs. native infrastructure.

Why This Matters for Builders and Next-Generation Protocols

For developers building the next generation of decentralized applications, modular interoperability is not just about security — it’s about unlocking possibilities that are impossible with bridge-based systems.

Consider what becomes possible when you can build applications that span multiple chains with the same security and atomicity assurances as single-chain applications:

True Cross-Chain DeFi: Imagine a DEX that can access liquidity from various chains natively without requiring users to bridge assets first. Or a lending protocol that can collateralize assets from any chain without the complexity of wrapped tokens.

Seamless User Experience: Users do not need to think about which chain their assets are on or worry about bridge fees and wait times. Modular interoperability allows applications to abstract away chain-specific details.

Composable Infrastructure: When chains can communicate natively, developers can build applications that leverage the unique strengths of various chains — using one chain for consensus, another for execution, and a third for data availability.

Lower Development Complexity: No longer is there a need to build custom bridge integrations or handle cross-chain transaction coordination. Developers can focus on application logic rather than infrastructure plumbing.

This is why we are seeing increased interest in modular blockchain architecture and native interoperability solutions. The improved developer experience alone makes this approach appealing, but the security benefits make it essential.

Altius Labs Perspective: Interoperability is Infrastructure

At Altius Labs, our thesis is simple: the future is not multichain — it is modular and interoperable. We have built high-performance execution infrastructure that works across multiple chains because we believe interoperability should be a fundamental property, not a feature.

Our approach to modular execution reflects this philosophy. By separating execution from consensus and data availability, we allow chains to share execution infrastructure while maintaining their unique properties. This creates natural interoperability without the need for bridge contracts or trusted intermediaries.

The performance benefits are clear — when you can leverage parallel execution across multiple chains, you unlock gigabytes per second of throughput that no single chain can achieve. However, the security benefits are equally important. When chains share execution infrastructure, cross-chain transactions inherit the same security properties as single-chain transactions.

We have seen this success in practice with our early partners. Developers building on our infrastructure do not need to worry about bridge security or the complexities of cross-chain coordination. They can build applications that span multiple chains with the same confidence they have when building single-chain applications.

This is not just a technical upgrade — it is a paradigm shift that opens the full potential of the multichain ecosystem. When interoperability becomes infrastructure rather than a feature, it enables innovations that are impossible to achieve with bridge-based approaches.

The Road Ahead: Building Native Interoperability

The transition from bridge-centric interoperability to modular interoperability will not happen overnight, but the momentum is building. Cross-chain DEXs (e.g., Squid, LI.FI, Router Protocol) allow users to swap assets natively across chains without relying on centralized exchanges or traditional bridges. These early implementations demonstrate what is possible when we move beyond bridge-based thinking.

For developers considering their infrastructure options, the question is not whether to support multiple chains — but how to do so safely and efficiently. Bridge-based approaches may offer short-term convenience, but they come with long-term security and usability costs that become more expensive over time.

The alternative is to design native interoperability from the ground up. This means choosing infrastructure that supports cross-chain communication without needing trusted intermediaries, planning atomic cross-chain transactions, and building a platform that treats interoperability as a fundamental property rather than an additional feature.

Conclusion

The future of multichain is indeed inevitable, but bridge hacks remain. We have witnessed billions of dollars in losses due to exploits that could have been prevented because the industry took shortcuts to interoperability. Instead of building adequate infrastructure, we are building bridges and hoping for the best.

The good news is that we now have a better alternative. Modular interoperability offers a path to secure and native cross-chain communication without the need for trusted intermediaries or complex bridge mechanisms. This is not just a technical upgrade — it is a fundamental shift that unlocks the full potential of the multichain ecosystem.

The question is not whether this transition will happen, but how quickly developers will adopt this new approach. Those who adopt modular interoperability early will have a significant advantage in building the next generation of cross-chain applications.

The era of bridge hacks is over. The era of modular interoperability has just begun.