Introduction
Token issuance was once straightforward: deploy your token on Ethereum, the hub of all activity—users, traders, capital, and liquidity. Today, the landscape is far more complex. Liquidity is distributed across Bitcoin, Ethereum, L2s, Solana, and other chains. So, where should you issue your token? There’s no simple answer.
But what if you didn’t have to choose just one chain? Imagine a token usable everywhere, flowing seamlessly across the entire crypto economy.
Thanks to interoperability protocols (or bridges), it’s now possible to issue tokens with unified markets across multiple chains. This creates borderless liquidity, simplifies operations for issuers, and unlocks greater adoption—all without fragmentation. Think of it as a global bank account integrated into every DeFi ecosystem.
In this article, we compare leading token frameworks offered by interoperability protocols, evaluating their features, advantages, and trade-offs to help teams choose the best solution for native multichain tokens. We’ll examine:
- Axelar’s Interchain Token Service (ITS)
- Wormhole’s Native Token Transfers (NTT)
- LayerZero’s Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT)
- Hyperlane’s Warp Token
- xERC-20 (EIP 7281: Sovereign Bridged Tokens)
Let’s dive in.
How Token Frameworks Work
Token frameworks operate in two primary ways, depending on whether you’re making an existing token multichain or launching a native multichain token from the outset.
Burn-and-Mint: For Native Multichain Tokens
When a token is natively issued across multiple chains from day one, its supply is distributed among those chains. Transfers between chains involve burning tokens on the source chain and minting them on the destination chain, ensuring the total supply remains constant.
Example: Token X has a total supply of 1,000 distributed across five chains. Transferring 50 tokens from Chain E to Chain A burns them on Chain E and mints them on Chain A, updating the allocation without altering the total supply.
Lock-and-Mint: For Existing Tokens
For tokens initially deployed on a single chain, the process differs. The full supply remains on the origin chain, while transfers lock tokens in a smart contract on the source chain and mint equivalents on the destination chain—similar to wrapped tokens but with added flexibility for further cross-chain movement.
Why Token Frameworks Matter
Unified multichain tokens offer teams:
- Enhanced liquidity from a consolidated market.
- Stronger brand recognition through broader DeFi accessibility.
- Simplified management with reduced operational complexity.
- Redundancy against chain-specific failures.
- Market expansion via rapid multi-chain deployment.
👉 Explore how Circle’s CCTP revolutionized USDC liquidity
Comparing Token Frameworks
Security
| Framework | Validation Mechanism | Flexibility | Notable Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| Axelar ITS | Validator set | High | DAO-governed security upgrades |
| Wormhole NTT | Guardian network | Medium | No protocol-level fee switch |
| LayerZero OFT | Dynamic Verification (DVN) | High | Customizable security policies |
Fees
- Protocol fees: Vary by framework; some (like NTT) have no fee switch.
- Gas costs: Cross-chain transfers incur gas fees on source/destination chains.
Smart Contracts
All frameworks support:
- Rate limiting and blacklisting.
- Immutable or upgradable deployments.
Adoption & Developer Experience
- OFT leads in deployments due to early-mover advantage.
- Warp Token excels in permissionless usability.
- NTT is favored for Solana-EVM interoperability.
Key Takeaways
- Trends: Customizable validation and security practices are now standard.
Frontrunners:
- OFT (LayerZero) dominates in deployments.
- Warp Token (Hyperlane) prioritizes permissionless design.
- NTT (Wormhole) avoids protocol fees, appealing for high-value tokens.
- Future Outlook: Token frameworks could replace wrapped assets, but fragmentation remains a challenge.
FAQ
Q: Which framework is best for Solana-EVM transfers?
A: Wormhole’s NTT, designed for seamless Solana-EVM interoperability.
Q: Do token frameworks eliminate liquidity pools?
A: Yes—assets are minted directly on destination chains, bypassing pool-based transfers.
Q: Are there risks to using token frameworks?
A: Yes, reliance on interoperability protocols introduces third-party risks (e.g., bridge failures).
Q: How do fees compare across frameworks?
A: Costs vary by validation complexity; NTT and xERC-20 lack protocol fees.
👉 Learn more about cross-chain token strategies
Conclusion
Token frameworks are reshaping multichain value flow, offering efficiency and liquidity benefits. While adoption grows, teams must weigh security, cost, and chain coverage when choosing a solution. The future may hinge on solving fragmentation—whether through dominant frameworks or solver-driven abstraction.
For now, the message is clear: multichain tokens are here to stay.