Intent routing vs lock-and-mint bridges
A lock-and-mint bridge locks your asset in a contract on the source chain and mints a representation of it on the destination chain. That representation is only worth the original as long as the lock stays intact — which is why this design has historically been where the largest bridge losses happened.
What you hold afterwards
- Lock-and-mint: a wrapped token. Your exposure to the bridge continues for as long as you hold it, and acceptance elsewhere is limited.
- Intent routing: the issuer's own token on the destination chain. Once the payout lands, the transfer is over and there is nothing left to unwrap.
Where the risk sits
Intent routing does not remove risk; it moves it. The exposure is concentrated in the settlement window between your pay-in and the payout, rather than persisting in a token you hold indefinitely. That window is what the settlement model is designed around, and it is why every transfer is driven to a terminal state — settled or refunded.
How to tell which one you used
Check the asset you received against the issuer, not the ticker: native USDC vs wrapped USDC.
