Stargate Finance, launched in 2022, is a cross-chain liquidity bridge built on LayerZero. It uses unified omnichain pools, enabling direct transfers of stablecoins, ETH, and other tokens across 10 blockchains. With its v2 Hydra upgrade, it introduced instant finality and flexible fee tiers. This review examines its mechanics, security posture, and how it stacks up against peers like Across Across Protocol. In 2025 Stargate was acquired by the LayerZero Foundation (a roughly $110M deal in ZRO), retiring the STG token. As of 2026-07-15, it holds about $80M in TVL (DeFiLlama), making it a mid-tier player in the bridging space.
What it is
Stargate Finance is a cross-chain bridge protocol designed to move assets between blockchains using unified liquidity pools. Unlike many bridges that fragment liquidity per chain pair, Stargate consolidates funds into shared pools for each asset. It operates on the LayerZero messaging protocol, which provides cross-chain communication. Launched in 2022, the protocol is widely used for stablecoin and ETH transfers. Its v2 iteration introduced the Hydra design for extending unified liquidity to new chains, and offers two transfer modes: Bus for lower-cost, batched transfers and Taxi for direct, instant transfers. Its former governance token, STG, was retired in 2025 when the Stargate DAO approved acquisition by the LayerZero Foundation and STG holders converted to ZRO. Stargate currently supports 10 networks, including both EVM chains and Aptos, a non-EVM environment.
How it works
When you initiate a transfer, Stargate’s router contract locks your tokens in the source chain’s omnichain pool and instructs LayerZero to relay a proof to the destination chain. The destination pool then mints an equivalent amount of the same asset, minus a fee. Crucially, each asset’s pool is shared across all chains, so a user moving USDC from Ethereum to Arbitrum draws from the same global pool as a transfer from Polygon to Base—eliminating isolated pool fragmentation.
In Stargate v2, transfers use one of two modes. The “Bus” path aggregates multiple user transfers into a single batch, lowering gas costs but adding a short delay until the batch is dispatched. The “Taxi” path sends tokens directly at the moment of swap for near-instant delivery, at a slightly higher fee. A tiered fee structure lets users balance speed against cost. Both modes rely on LayerZero’s verifier (DVN) network to attest to cross-chain messages. The protocol’s smart contracts are non-custodial; users retain control of their tokens until the bridge completes. Liquidity providers deposit into omnichain pools and earn fee revenue in proportion to their share.
Key numbers
- TVL: ~$80M (DeFiLlama, as of 2026-07-15)
- Chains: 10 (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, BNB, Avalanche, Base, Linea, Mantle, Aptos)
- Audits: Quantstamp, Zellic
- Launch: 2022
- Governance: LayerZero Foundation (STG acquired/converted to ZRO in 2025; STG retired)
- No major security incidents recorded
Security and audits
Stargate has completed two public audits: from Quantstamp and Zellic. These firms have reviewed its core bridge contracts, but the scope and findings have not been publicly detailed in this analysis. No critical vulnerabilities have been exploited on the protocol to date, and no incidents are recorded in its history. Following the 2025 LayerZero Foundation acquisition, governance and revenue flow through LayerZero's ZRO rather than a standalone STG DAO, concentrating control with the LayerZero Foundation. Specific details about the multisig setup or upgrade mechanisms are not disclosed in the facts assessed here.
Bridge protocols remain a high-risk category in DeFi due to large asset pools and reliance on external validators. Stargate’s dependence on LayerZero’s messenger network introduces an additional dependency layer. While the v2 Hydra design includes instant finality modes, optimistic verification still requires a challenge window, creating a brief window where an invalid transfer could theoretically be processed. The audit count (two) is lower than that of some competitors; for example, Across Across Protocol has undergone three audits from multiple firms. Users should weigh these factors when assessing safety.
Strengths
- Unified liquidity design: The omnichain pooling model concentrates TVL, avoiding the inefficiency of fragmented pair-based pools. This has supported roughly $80M in total deposits across 10 chains.
- v2 efficiency: Near-instant Taxi transfers and low-cost batched Bus transfers give users flexibility. The tiered fee structure optimizes for both speed and affordability.
- Broad chain support: Coverage of 10 networks, including non-EVM Aptos, expands its reach beyond Ethereum-centric bridges. This makes Stargate one of the few bridges compatible with both EVM and non-EVM environments.
Weaknesses and risks
- Bridge category risk: Even with audits, cross-chain bridges are frequent exploit targets. Stargate’s large pooled liquidity makes it a high-value target, and it has not yet been battle-tested in a major incident.
- Limited audit coverage: Two audits (Quantstamp, Zellic) are a relatively small number for a bridge protocol. No third-party formal verification or continuous security monitoring is cited.
- Modest TVL relative to DeFi giants: The ~$80M TVL pales against protocols like EigenLayer EigenLayer (~$5B) or Lido Lido (~$17B). During extreme market volatility, liquidity could become strained, potentially causing congestion or wider slippage.
How it compares
Stargate’s most direct peer is Across Across Protocol, another bridge that supports 10 chains and uses an intent-based relayer model with UMA optimistic verification. Across holds roughly $21M TVL—well under Stargate’s ~$80M—and offers fast, capital-efficient transfers, particularly for L2-to-L2 pairs. Across’s audit portfolio (OpenZeppelin, Mixbytes, Code4rena) is slightly more extensive. In throughput and fee mechanisms, the two are broadly comparable after v2 Hydra’s instant finality. However, Across’s relayer network competes on speed for certain paths, while Stargate’s unified pools may offer deeper liquidity for large stablecoin moves.
Beyond bridging, Stargate operates in a different league than lending or LST giants. EigenLayer EigenLayer (~$5B TVL) and Lido Lido (~$17B TVL) dwarf its capital base. This isn’t surprising—bridges generally hold less TVL than liquid staking or lending—but it underscores Stargate’s niche role. Among bridges, Stargate and Across are leading options, each with distinct trade-offs in liquidity mechanics and verification.
Verdict
Stargate Finance delivers a competent unified-liquidity bridge with meaningful v2 upgrades. Its Hydra design addresses speed and cost, and 10-chain support is robust. Yet bridge risk looms large: only two public audits and a TVL that, while solid for its category, is modest in absolute terms. The protocol has avoided exploits so far, but sustained security practices are unproven. We rate it 7.5 out of 10—a reliable tool for cross-chain transfers, but one to monitor closely as the bridge landscape evolves.