EXPLAINER | How to Send Stablecoins From One Blockchain to Another Without Losing Your Money

If you have your money in USDT on Ethereum Blockchain and you wish to do a transaction on Tron Blockchain, sending your money becomes a problem. Learn how to execute such a transaction.

CryptoGuru··11 min read

The total market capitalization of stablecoins has increased over 60% in the past 12 months. As early as we are into 2025, Tether, the company behind the biggest stablecoin (USDT), already minted over 2 billion $USDT. The company also announced their plan to issue stablecoins pegged to more fiat currencies, including the UAE Dirrham. 


All these points point out a really important point: global adoption of stablecoins has drastically increased, and it keeps increasing. More financial transactions are now made with stablecoins. Virtual payment service providers such as PayPal have also adopted stablecoins, further solidifying the notion that stablecoin transactions are increasing.

But the crypto industry is very vast as we have over a thousand distinct blockchains in existence, many of which support the issuance of stablecoins. Tether (USDT) for example is currently issued on over a dozen different blockchain networks, including Ethereum, Solana, BNB, TON, and TRX. This only increases complexity and creates confusion in the crypto market.

For example, if you have your money in $USDT on Ethereum Blockchain and you wish to do a transaction on Tron Blockchain, sending your money becomes a problem. 

So how do you send stablecoins from one blockchain to another without losing your money?

 

There are two options:

  1. Bridging protocols 
  2. Centralized exchange (CEX)

 

These two options depend on where your stablecoin is held, bridging is the best option only if your stablecoin is in a self custodial web3 wallet where you control every transaction, the other option is very easy especially if you already have your money on such Centralized exchanges.

 

Bridging Protocols

Blockchains are like island countries with no roads in-between them and each country has its own sustaining ecosystem. As the name implies, bridging is the process of transferring your assets from one island (Blockchain) to the other. It allows you to send Solana money to Ethereum Blockchain.

To bridge a stablecoin from one blockchain to another, you’ll typically use a blockchain bridge protocol, like Synapse Bridge, Wormhole or deBridge, using a compatible web3 wallet like MetaMask, Trust Wallet, or Bitget wallet.

 

Bridge Comparison

Each of these bridges has its strengths and weaknesses. Below is an overview of the bridges, pros, cons, and their unique capabilities.

Synapse Bridge

Synapse Bridge is a widely used cross-chain interoperability solution that facilitates asset transfers across both EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) and non-EVM blockchains. It’s known for its user-friendly interface and support for stablecoin swapping.

Pros:

  • Wide range of supported Blockchains: Synapse Bridge Supports over 16 blockchains, including Ethereum, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Polygon, Solana (via partnerships like deBridge), and Layer 2 solutions such as Optimism and Base.
  • Stablecoin Focus: This platform offers seamless cross-chain swapping of stablecoins (e.g., USDC, USDT, DAI).
  • User-Friendly: Its interface is easy to understand with features like the Synapse Explorer for transparent tracking of transactions.
  • Security Model: Synapse bridge has never been hacked despite an attempted exploit in 2021. It uses a decentralized system of Guards and Notaries who stake collateral, enhancing security.
  • Cost-Effective: Destination chain gas fees are covered under the current blockchain and often returns more assets than sent due to its fee structure.

 

Cons:

  • Limited Altcoin Variety: Synapse bridge focuses heavily on transactions involving stablecoins and major assets like ETH, with less support for smaller altcoins.
  • Solana Dependency: The platform relies on third-party solutions (e.g., deBridge) for Solana blockchain bridging, which may introduce additional complexity or slower transactions.
  • Moderate Speed: Transaction times vary depending on the blockchains involved but typically slower than specific bridges like deBridge.

 

Favored Circumstances

Synapse is the best when users need a reliable and secure bridge for stablecoin transfers across EVM-compatible chains.

Wormhole

Wormhole is a noteworthy cross-chain messaging protocol that powers the Portal Token Bridge, facilitating token and NFT transfers between a wide range of blockchains, including Ethereum, Solana, Aptos, and Sui. It uses a network of 19 guardians to validate transactions.

Pros:

  • Extensive Blockchain Support: Wormhole connects over 20 blockchains, including non-EVM networks like Solana, Near, and Aptos which makes it highly versatile.
  • NFT Bridging: Beyond stablecoins and fungible assets, wormhole offers a dedicated NFT bridge for ERC-721 and SPL-standard NFTs. This feature makes it stand out from the likes of Synapse and deBridge.
  • High Volume: This decentralized platform has facilitated over $39 billion in transfers which indicates reliability for large-scale use.
  • Decentralized Validation: It relies on a guardian network (19 guardians), reducing single points of failure compared to centralized bridges.

 

Cons:

  • Security History: Wormhole suffered a major hack in February 2022, where 120,000 wETH ($325 million) was stolen due to a smart contract vulnerability. This raises concerns about its reliability.
  • Slower Transactions: Transfers often take 20 or more minutes, especially when dealing with Solana due to the guardian verification process.
  • Higher Fees: Gas fees can be very high during network congestion because it relies on the native gas models of the involved blockchains.

 

Favored Circumstances

Wormhole is favored when users need to bridge assets (especially NFTs) to non-EVM chains like Solana or when working with a diverse set of blockchains not supported by other bridges.

DeBridge

DeBridge is a decentralized interoperability protocol designed for fast and secure transfers of tokens and arbitrary data across blockchains. It uses a validator network and off-chain transaction validation for efficiency.

Pros:

  • High Speed: It is known for sub-minute transaction times (e.g., Solana bridging in less than 1 minute), thanks to its intent-based design and off-chain validation.
  • Wide Token Support: It supports over 1,000 tokens, including USDC, DAI, USDT, and ETH, across chains like Arbitrum, Solana, and Polygon.
  • Decentralized and Secure: deBridge employs a validator network with slashing mechanisms to ensure honesty, and uses Arweave for data availability.
  • Developer Flexibility: It supports cross-chain smart contract calls, NFT bridging, and multi-chain governance, ideal for complex dApps.

 

Cons:

  • Liquidity Constraints: Its liquidity pools are smaller than Synapse or Wormhole which can lead to slippage for large transfers.
  • Less Mature: It is a newer bridge and it lacks the extensive track record of Synapse or Wormhole.
  • EVM-Centric: DeBridge is currently mostly useful for transactions related to EVM compatible blockchains. Though still expanding, its non-EVM support (e.g., Solana) is less comprehensive than Wormhole’s.

 

Favored Circumstances

DeBridge is very good for transactions that require fast transfers (e.g., arbitrage opportunities) or when developers need a lightweight, flexible bridge for cross-chain smart contract interactions.

 

When is One Bridge Favored Over Another

Since all of these bridges have their specialties which makes them different or better than the others, here are a set of common circumstances in web3 with the best bridges that are best used.

 

  • Stablecoin Swaps: Synapse is ideal for stablecoin-focused transactions due to its liquidity pools and staking yields, unlike Wormhole’s broader token focus or deBridge’s speed-driven design.
  • Speed: deBridge is best used for time-sensitive transfers (e.g., Solana bridging in under 1 minute) over Wormhole (20+ minutes) or Synapse (variable but slower).
  • Security: Synapse’s flawless security record makes it preferable for cautious users compared to Wormhole, which has a hack in its past and deBridge which is still new compared to the others.
  • Blockchain Coverage: Wormhole is chosen for non-EVM chains (e.g., Solana, Aptos) or NFT bridging, where Synapse and deBridge have less native support.
  • Development Needs: Synapse and deBridge cater to developers with SDKs and cross-chain messaging, while Wormhole is more user-oriented with its NFT capabilities.

 

Recommendations for Specific Stablecoin Scenarios

  • Transferring USDC from Ethereum to Solana: deBridge

Reason: deBridge offers the fastest transfer times (under 1 minute) for Solana, critical for USDC swaps where timing matters (e.g., trading). Wormhole is slower (20+ minutes), and Synapse relies on deBridge for Solana anyway, adding unnecessary steps.

Alternative: Wormhole if NFT bridging is also needed alongside USDC.

 

  • Swapping USDT Across EVM Chains (e.g., Ethereum to Polygon): Synapse

Reason: Synapse’s stablecoin liquidity pools and coverage of EVM chains like Polygon ensure low slippage and cost-effective swaps. Its security and staking yields (up to 23% APY) add value for USDT holders.

Alternative: deBridge for faster transfers if speed trumps cost.

 

  • Large-Scale Stablecoin Transfer (e.g., $1M USDC): Synapse

Reason: Synapse’s high liquidity and proven volume ($17.33B transferred) make it suitable for large transactions with minimal slippage. Wormhole’s hack history and deBridge’s smaller pools pose risks for big transfers.

Alternative: Wormhole if non-EVM chains are involved.

 

How Do You Bridge Your Stablecoin from a Blockchain to Another?

Now you know the three most popular bridging protocols and when they’re best used, using these platforms for the first time can be confusing, here’s a step by step guide on how To Send Stablecoins From One Blockchain To Another Without Losing Your Money.

 

Choose a Bridge Protocol:

Select a bridge protocol that is best used for your specific transaction and supports your target blockchain.

Synapse being the best in terms of stablecoins is used for illusion in this article.

Choose a Wallet

Make sure your wallet is compatible with both the source and destination blockchains. MetaMask and Trust Wallet are popular choices, but other wallets like Bitget wallet also work. If your coin is currently held on a blockchain specific wallet, you may want to login your wallet or move your coin to one of these.

Connect Your Wallet

Navigate to the bridge protocol’s website or interface (copy their website address and paste it in the wallet browser), and connect your wallet.

See also

Select Source and Destination Networks

Choose the blockchain where your stablecoin is currently held (From) and the blockchain which you’re bridging (To).

Select Stablecoin and Amount

Choose the specific stablecoin (e.g., USDC) and specify the amount you want to bridge.

Initiate the Transaction

Click “Bridge” or “Confirm Transaction” to initiate the bridge transaction. 

 

Wait for Confirmation

The transaction will be processed, and it may take some time (depending on the bridge protocol and network congestion) to complete. Keep an eye on the transaction status.

Check Destination Wallet

Once the transaction is confirmed, you’ll see the bridged stablecoins in your wallet on the destination blockchain. 

 

Note:

  • You must Double-check the recipient address on the destination blockchain to avoid losing funds
  • Be aware of the gas fees associated with bridging and choose a bridge that offers reasonable rates
  • Bridging times can vary, so allow for potential delays and check the transaction status periodically

 

Advantages of Decentralized Bridges

  • Trustless and Non-Custodial: Decentralized bridges eliminate the need for intermediaries, reducing counterparty risk and ensuring users maintain control over their assets.
  • Improved Security: Decentralized bridges are more resilient to security breaches, as they rely on decentralized networks and smart contracts.
  • Flexibility and Interoperability: Decentralized bridges can support a wide range of assets (usually more than Centralized exchanges) and blockchain networks, enabling seamless interactions across ecosystems. 

Disadvantages

  1. Complexity and Technical Requirements: Decentralized bridges often require users to have a deeper understanding of blockchain technology and smart contracts.
  2. Slower Transaction Times: Decentralized bridges may have slower transaction processing times due to the complexity of cross-chain interactions.

 

Centralized Exchanges

Centralized exchanges usually hold their stablecoins readily on different blockchains, and because of that there are many options when it comes to stablecoin withdrawal on Centralized exchanges.

Centralized exchanges practically do not have to bridge before they can allow you to send to any other Blockchains because they already have these stablecoins on some or most of the Blockchains, they simply just help you to send from the wallet which contains stablecoins on the Blockchain you have chosen.

 

To send your stablecoins from one blockchain to another, all you have to do is to simply deposit your stablecoin to such exchange and then withdraw it to another Blockchain of your choice.

 

Here’s and example of withdrawal interface on Bybit with 14 blockchain options for withdrawal:

Advantages

  • Faster Transactions: Centralized exchanges typically offer faster transaction processing times, making them suitable for high-frequency trading and other time-sensitive applications.
  • Simplified User Experience: Centralized exchanges often provide a more streamlined user experience, with intuitive interfaces and minimal technical requirements.

Disadvantages

  • Security Vulnerability and Custodial Risk: Centralized bridges require users to trust a third-party custodian with their assets which can be vulnerable to hacking and other security breaches, compromising user funds. In most cases, this may not really matter as your deposit and withdrawal transactions take place within minutes.
  • Limited Flexibility: In most cases, stablecoin withdrawal on Centralized exchanges are usually limited to a specific number of blockchains they allow or have in their reserve. Sometimes, Blockchain congestion or other issues could cause them to suspend withdrawal on some blockchains which means you either have to wait for an unknown amount of time or just have to explore other options — other CEX or bridging protocols.

 

(Example of suspended withdrawal which wouldn’t happen on a decentralized bridge)

Conclusion

With increasing adoption, stablecoins are clearly here to stay, and the rise of stablecoins highlights their growing role in global finance. However, the complexity of navigating a crypto landscape with so many blockchains presents challenges, particularly when moving assets across networks. Users have viable options to adapt whether through bridging or centralized exchanges.

Centralized exchanges offer faster transactions and a simplified user experience while Decentralized bridges provide trustless and non-custodial solutions, improving security and flexibility, but may require some technical blockchain knowledge. The choice between centralized and decentralized bridges ultimately depends on your specific needs and priorities.

As the stablecoin ecosystem continues to evolve, its ability to bridge traditional finance and decentralized innovation will only become more vital, enhancing seamless and borderless transactions.

 

 

 

Follow us on X for latest posts and updates

Join and interact with our Telegram community

________________________________________

________________________________________

Related
All Rights Reserved - BitcoinKe.io
2020 © Zeen World News