When cross-chain protocols begin to expand their services from "bridging" to "swap"

Writing by: Tia, Techub News

In the early era of single-chain, role boundaries were very clear. Bridges are bridges, DEXs are DEXs, and DEX aggregators solve the problem of “how to swap the cheapest on the same chain.” If you swap ETH for USDC on Ethereum, tools like 1inch and Matcha are the natural choices. At this stage, “swap” was considered an intra-chain issue.

When the multi-chain era arrived, users began to cross chains more frequently, and new demands emerged: assets need to move from Chain A to Chain B. This is when bridges and “bridge aggregators” appeared. Initially, their job was simple: help you compare prices and speeds across different bridges, such as the best way to transfer ETH from Ethereum to Arbitrum.

But a crucial, overlooked change occurred at that time: bridge aggregators didn’t just aggregate bridges; they also conveniently aggregated DEXs.

Once you bundle “bridge + DEX,” what you offer is no longer just “cross-chain transfer,” but “cross-chain swap.” That is:

ETH (Ethereum) → USDC (Arbitrum)

Instead of:

ETH (Ethereum) → ETH (Arbitrum)

This step is natural for user experience, but extremely important for industry structure. It means: swap is no longer an exclusive capability of DEXs but a component of the cross-chain process.

Why didn’t everyone take “swap” seriously at that time?

Because, at that stage, swap seemed just an “auxiliary action” in the cross-chain process. You need to cross chains anyway, so swapping tokens is just a side task. People subconsciously believed:

“Token swapping should be handled by DEX aggregators.”

But the problem lies in scalability.

As the number of chains exploded, DEX aggregators faced a structural bottleneck: they found it difficult to horizontally scale to many chains. Each new chain meant a new DEX, new liquidity structures, new routing logic, and high technical and operational costs.

Conversely, the core strength of cross-chain teams is chain expansion.

For interop teams, adding new chains is routine and a core capability.

So a clear contrast emerged:

Cross-chain / Bridge aggregators: support 50–100+ chains

DEX / DEX aggregators: usually support single digits, rarely reaching 20

You can even see this result in each ecosystem:

Native DEXs are always the strongest.

PancakeSwap, Pump, Aerodrome, LFJ…

And DEX aggregators trying to “cover all chains” are almost always beaten by local DEXs.

At this point, the role of “swap” quietly reversed.

By aggregating the strongest native DEXs in each ecosystem and combining with bridges, bridge aggregators have become the “most powerful swap engines” in the entire market.

LI.FI is a typical example. It doesn’t build DEXs itself but:

Connects to 20+ bridges

Integrates 20+ DEXs and DEX aggregators

Covers 60+ chains

This brings a structural advantage:

When you “connect everything,” you naturally have the most complete path search space.

The result is:

Whether it’s same-chain swap or cross-chain swap, in comparisons across many chains, tokens, and trading volumes, cross-chain aggregators can offer better quotes.

This is also why you start to see an counterintuitive phenomenon:

“Bridge aggregators” are beating traditional DEX aggregators in same-chain swaps.

So, power begins to shift.

When swap becomes a strength of bridge aggregators, they naturally start to “eat into” the distribution channels that originally belonged to DEX aggregators. LI.FI is directly integrated into many wallets and cross-chain applications for same-chain swaps, which already indicates one thing:

The entry point has changed hands.

And this is not an isolated case.

You will find many “bridges” now directly offering same-chain swaps:

Mayan, Relay are doing it;

Stargate launched Fast Swaps;

Across also launched a Swap API.

This is not a strategic pivot but a very typical horizontal expansion:

Not switching to a new track, but extending along existing capabilities into adjacent markets.

Why are interop teams particularly suited for this kind of horizontal expansion?

Because once you solve the hardest problem—“cross-chain”—the rest of DeFi becomes much simpler.

This difference is especially evident when new chains launch. Take Monad as an example: almost all mainstream bridges were deployed on the first day, while DEXs and DEX aggregators usually only appear in a few. The speed, coverage, and flexibility advantages of interop teams make them naturally the first entry point into new ecosystems.

Speed, coverage, flexibility—these are the innate advantages of interop teams.

This is also why swap is only the first step.

Next is Earn.

Once you are the “best entry point for 60+ chains,” all you need to do is:

Send users’ funds to the highest-yielding places on each chain.

This doesn’t require you to build lending protocols yourself.

You just need to connect to existing protocols like Aave, Morpho, and create a cross-chain yield aggregation layer.

So you start to see:

Wormhole Portal launching Earn

Jumper preparing to launch yield products across 60+ chains

The logic is exactly the same as with swap:

Not inventing new financial primitives, but reassembling existing primitives with interop capabilities.

In the long run, cross-chain teams will gradually erode all DeFi front-ends related to asset flow.

Because they are born for the “multi-chain reality,” not just forcibly extending from the “single-chain world.”