Cross-chain bridges moved over $51B in 30 days, but the protocols handling that volume operate very different businesses.

November 6 snapshot:
→ @Circle CCTP: $18B+
→ @LayerZero_Core: $12.5B
→ @AcrossProtocol: $6.1B
→ @RelayProtocol: $4.3B
→ @USDT0_to: $3.1B
These are activity figures, not revenue. Some flows overlap.
The differences come down to liquidity, execution and who captures the economics.
1. @Circle CCTP
CCTP burns USDC on the source chain, verifies it through Circle’s attestation system and mints equivalent USDC on the destination.
It needs no separate wrapped-token liquidity pool, improving capital efficiency.
Standard transfers carry no Circle protocol fee. Eligible faster transfers and automated forwarding can generate fees.
So $18B in volume doesn’t translate directly into bridge-fee revenue. CCTP also expands USDC distribution, supporting Circle’s broader business.
2. @LayerZero_Core
LayerZero provides generalized cross-chain messaging. DVNs verify messages while Executors carry them out.
Recent changes:
→ Stargate fees: up to 2 bps, capped at $250 on applicable routes.
→ LayerZero Labs’ minimum Executor fee: $0.25 per transaction.
→ Excess Stargate transfer-fee revenue funds $ZRO buybacks.
The broader protocol fee switch remains subject to governance.
Not all messaging fees accrue to LayerZero or $ZRO, and tracked volume doesn’t translate proportionally into buybacks.
3. @AcrossProtocol
Across uses intents: relayers front destination-chain liquidity, then receive reimbursement. Fees compensate execution and capital utilization.
But its ownership model is changing.
Across transferred its protocol business to AcrossCo and is sunsetting $ACX .
Holders were offered a USDC buyout or, subject to eligibility and allocation limits, equity conversion.
After January 8, 2027, $ACX is scheduled to lose governance, utility and economic functions.
The transfer business can keep growing while ownership economics move from token to equity, unlike LayerZero’s buyback model.
4. @RelayProtocol
Relay uses solvers to fund fast intent-based transfers, swaps and application interactions before settlement.
It earns platform fees, execution charges and integration-related revenue.
But solver costs and integrator revenue-sharing reduce retained earnings.
Relay versus Across should be evaluated through net revenue, settlement speed, capital requirements and distribution, not volume alone.
5. @USDT0_to
USDT0 uses LayerZero’s OFT infrastructure.
USDT is locked through an Ethereum adapter, with corresponding USDT0 minted on supported networks. Subsequent transfers can burn and mint between chains.
This expands USDT portability without separate third-party wrappers on every network.
But USDT0 activity overlaps LayerZero messaging, and fees vary by route and infrastructure.
Its economics primarily support broader USDT distribution.
— The Competitive Economics
Five questions are more important than headline volume:
→ Who supplies liquidity?
→ Who bears settlement risk?
→ Who controls distribution?
→ What’s retained after execution costs?
→ Does value accrue to token holders, equity owners, operators or issuers?
Circle can move billions without standard protocol fees.
LayerZero directs selected revenue toward $ZRO.
Across is transitioning business ownership toward equity.
Relay shares economics with solvers and integrators.
USDT0 extends USDT distribution through LayerZero.
As bridges become embedded inside wallets, exchanges and applications, distribution and retained revenue become as important as speed.
A protocol moving $10B isn’t necessarily a stronger business than one moving $3B.
It depends on value per transfer, who captures it and whether investors actually have a claim on that value.