Written by: Tia, Techub News

In the early single-chain era, the boundaries of roles were very clear. Bridges were bridges, DEXs were DEXs, and DEX aggregators solved the problem of "how to swap most cheaply on the same chain." If you wanted to swap ETH for USDC on Ethereum, tools like 1inch and Matcha were natural choices. At this stage, "swap" was considered an intra-chain issue.

When the multi-chain era arrived, users began to frequently cross chains, and new demands emerged: assets needed to move from Chain A to Chain B. This is when bridges and "bridge aggregators" appeared. Initially, their function was simple: to help you compare the prices and speeds of different bridges, for example, which bridge is best for moving ETH from Ethereum to Arbitrum.

But a crucial change occurred that went largely unnoticed at the time: bridge aggregators did not just aggregate bridges; they also aggregated DEXs.

Once you bundled "bridge + DEX" together, what you provided was no longer "cross-chain transfer," but "cross-chain swap." That is:

ETH (Ethereum) → USDC (Arbitrum)

Instead of:

ETH (Ethereum) → ETH (Arbitrum)

This step was natural in terms of user experience, but it was very important in terms of industry structure. It meant: swap was 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 merely an "ancillary action" in the cross-chain process. You were going to cross chains anyway, so you might as well swap coins. Subconsciously, everyone thought:

"Swapping coins should be left to DEX aggregators."

But the problem lay in scalability.

With the explosive growth in the number of chains, DEX aggregators encountered a structural bottleneck: it was difficult for them to horizontally scale to a large number of chains. Each new chain meant new DEXs, new liquidity structures, and new routing logic, with high technical and operational costs.

Conversely, the "fundamentals" of cross-chain teams were precisely about expanding chains.

For interop teams, launching new chains was part of their daily work and core competency.

Thus, a clear contrast emerged:

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

• DEX / DEX aggregators: usually single digits, with very few reaching 20 chains

You can even see this result in every ecosystem:

Native DEXs are always the strongest.

PancakeSwap, Pump, Aerodrome, LFJ…

And DEX aggregators trying to "eat through all chains" are almost always outperformed by local DEXs.

At this point, the capability of "swap" quietly underwent a role reversal.

By aggregating the strongest native DEXs in each ecosystem and combining them with bridges, bridge aggregators became the "strongest swap engine" in the entire market.

LI.FI is a typical example here. It does not create its own DEX but:

• Connects to 20+ bridges

• Connects to 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 swaps or cross-chain swaps, in comparisons of numerous chains, tokens, and trading volumes, cross-chain aggregators can provide better quotes.

This is also why you are starting to see a counterintuitive phenomenon:

"Bridge aggregators" are defeating traditional DEX aggregators in same-chain swaps.

Thus, power began to shift.

When swap became a strong point for bridge aggregators, it was only natural for them to start "taking over" the distribution channels that originally belonged to DEX aggregators. LI.FI being integrated directly by numerous wallets and cross-chain applications for same-chain swaps indicates one thing:

The entry point has changed hands.

And this is not an isolated case.

You will find many "bridges" starting to directly offer same-chain swaps:

Mayan, Relay are both doing it;

Stargate launched Fast Swaps;

Across also launched a Swap API.

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

Not changing tracks, but extending into adjacent markets based on existing capabilities.

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

Because once you solve the "cross-chain" problem, the subsequent DeFi aspects become simpler.

This difference is particularly evident when new chains are launched. Take Monad as an example; almost all mainstream bridges completed deployment on the first day, while DEXs and DEX aggregators often only had a few appear. The advantages of interoperability teams in speed, coverage, and flexibility make them the natural first entry point for new ecosystems.

Speed, coverage, flexibility—these are all natural advantages of interop teams.

This is also why swap is just the first step.

Next is Earn

Once you are "the best entry point across 60+ chains," you only need to do one more thing:

Send users' funds to the places with the highest yields on each chain.

This does not require you to create your own lending protocol.

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

So you are starting to see:

• Wormhole Portal launching Earn

• Jumper preparing to launch yield products across 60+ chains

The logic is exactly the same as swap:

Not innovating new financial primitives, but restructuring existing primitives using interop capabilities.

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

Because they are born for the "multi-chain reality," rather than awkwardly expanding from a "single-chain world."

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。