BitGo is moving Wrapped Bitcoin, the $7.4 billion token that remains the largest representation of Bitcoin on smart-contract blockchains, from LayerZero’s Omnichain Fungible Token framework to Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol, or CCIP. The custodian said CCIP will become the exclusive cross-chain standard for WBTC and for future assets it issues.
The decision places the most widely used wrapped Bitcoin token at the center of a growing migration away from LayerZero’s bridge architecture after the $292 million KelpDAO rsETH bridge exploit earlier this year. Including WBTC, assets committed to moving from LayerZero-based systems to CCIP now approach $15 billion in value, based on the figures cited by the projects involved.
WBTC had been the largest asset using LayerZero’s OFT standard. Its move gives Chainlink a major foothold in the wrapped Bitcoin market, where cross-chain transfers are central to how tokens reach lending protocols, decentralized exchanges and other DeFi applications on multiple networks.
BitGo adopts CCIP for future issued assets
BitGo said CCIP will serve as the inter-blockchain messaging and token-transfer layer for all future BitGo-issued assets, extending the decision beyond WBTC. The company retains full ownership and control of WBTC’s token contracts, while the underlying Bitcoin reserve is managed through its custody arrangement.
The migration does not change WBTC’s basic function: each token is intended to represent Bitcoin held in custody. It changes the infrastructure used when WBTC moves between networks. That infrastructure has become a focal point after a succession of bridge security failures across the industry, where attackers have targeted the systems that verify whether an asset transfer on one blockchain should result in a corresponding release or mint on another.
Chainlink said CCIP bridges are secured by at least 16 independent node operators that have undergone security review and have established records for reliability and uptime. The protocol also includes rate limits and configurable transfer controls designed to constrain activity if a transfer pattern appears abnormal.
Chainlink’s announcement added that CCIP holds SOC 2 Type 2 and ISO 27001 certifications. Those certifications address organizational controls and information-security management processes; they do not by themselves guarantee that a bridge cannot be exploited.
KelpDAO exploit exposed verifier configuration risks
The move follows the KelpDAO rsETH bridge exploit, in which attackers drained $292 million after compromising off-chain RPC infrastructure that supplied data to a verifier. RPC infrastructure allows applications and services to read and submit information to a blockchain, making it a potential weak point when a bridge relies on those feeds to validate cross-chain messages.
At the time of that incident, LayerZero used a configurable Decentralized Verifier Network, or DVN, model. Clients could choose the number of independent verifiers required to approve messages for a particular cross-chain route, known as a lane.
KelpDAO’s rsETH bridge used a 1-of-1 configuration, according to the supplied account of the exploit. That meant a single DVN operated by LayerZero Labs could authorize messages. Once attackers compromised the off-chain infrastructure feeding information to that verifier, they forged a message that enabled the drain.
Dune Analytics data cited in the announcement found that 47% of LayerZero OApp contracts used a 1-of-1 DVN configuration. Following the exploit, LayerZero updated its security approach. The episode has made bridge configuration, rather than a protocol’s brand alone, a more immediate concern for teams moving large collateral pools between chains.
A system that lets applications customize verifier requirements can offer flexibility, but it also lets individual projects choose security thresholds that are too low for the value moving through a bridge. BitGo’s shift to CCIP’s stated minimum node-operator model places WBTC’s cross-chain design on a less customizable footing.
Wrapped Bitcoin market remains concentrated
WBTC accounts for roughly 45% of the total market capitalization of wrapped Bitcoin tokens, according to CoinGecko data cited in the announcement. Launched in 2019, it once represented nearly the entire market and at one point had more than $15 billion in circulation.
The market has become more competitive as custodians and exchanges introduced alternatives. Coinbase’s cbBTC is now the second-largest wrapped Bitcoin token, with a market capitalization of about $6 billion, according to CoinGecko. The next-largest token after cbBTC remains below $500 million, leaving WBTC and cbBTC as the dominant pair.
Several Bitcoin-related projects had already adopted CCIP before the WBTC announcement. They include kBTC, along with Solv Protocol’s SolvBTC and xSolvBTC. The value of assets associated with those earlier migrations was about $7.2 billion as of July, according to the announcement. WBTC’s addition more than doubles that figure.
The concentration of wrapped Bitcoin in two large tokens means technical and custody decisions by their issuers can rapidly reshape liquidity across DeFi markets. Protocols that accept WBTC as collateral or pair it against other assets depend on cross-chain routes functioning predictably, particularly where tokens are moved to meet demand on different networks.
Custody questions remain separate from bridge choice
WBTC has also faced scrutiny over its reserve-custody structure since 2024, when BitGo began working with Justin Sun-linked BiT Global in a multi-jurisdiction custody arrangement. Under that structure, BiT Global received two of the three keys in the multisignature system controlling the Bitcoin reserves.
That custody controversy contributed to Coinbase’s decision to delist WBTC and launch cbBTC. BiT Global subsequently sued Coinbase, alleging anticompetitive conduct, before dropping the case. A federal judge ruled that Coinbase was entitled to delist the token.
The CCIP migration addresses the mechanism used to move WBTC across chains rather than the governance of the Bitcoin backing it. Yet the two issues meet in practice: users of wrapped assets must rely on both the custody arrangement that supports redemption and the bridge architecture that carries tokens between networks.
For BitGo, adopting a single cross-chain provider gives WBTC a more standardized path across supported blockchains. For Chainlink, securing WBTC adds the biggest wrapped Bitcoin asset to a migration trend that had already begun to redirect billions of dollars of token value away from LayerZero-based implementations.
Curious how cross-chain security shapes trading? Explore oracle networks and their role in safeguarding blockchain transfers today.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
