KoinlyticsTraditional bridges lock your ETH on L1 and mint a token on L2. That locked ETH sits idle. Native-yield bridges (Blast, Manta) invest the locked assets and give bridged users a share.
Blast's model
ETH bridged to Blast is staked as stETH; the yield accrues to Blast users automatically. USDC becomes USDB (backed by DAI's DSR). No action required, no wrapper token to hold.
Manta and others
Manta Pacific similarly routes bridged assets to yield strategies. Merlin, some Berachain designs, and others follow variations of the same theme.
Trade-offs
- Pro: passive yield that would otherwise sit idle.
- Pro: better UX (no separate staking action).
- Con: your bridge fund now has exposure to the yield strategy (stETH validator risk, DSR rate risk).
- Con: bridge exit can be delayed if underlying yield asset needs to unstake.
Is it a real trend?
Blast attracted $2B+ in the first weeks by paying yield during pre-launch "deposit season." Whether the model persists depends on whether the bridged yield differential (typically 3-5% APR) meaningfully wins vs traditional L2s. Base and Arbitrum have deeper DeFi, so many users would rather bridge, LP, and earn there.
What to actually watch
- Where is the bridged asset invested? (stETH, T-bills, DSR).
- What is the exit delay if you want to bridge back?
- Is the yield actually higher than what you'd earn by manually LPing on a bigger L2?