Chainflip Review

Chainflip scores 7.6 out of 10 in our bridge ratings, up from 4.6, fifth of nine. In July its validator and swapping pages returned errors, and the trust model could not be verified. Those pages are live again, and they are among the most specific in the category: a 100-of-150 threshold signature over every vault, with the emergency powers of governance spelled out. Fees are now published as a full table. What holds the score back is a short chain list and the lack of any audit index of Chainflip's own.

This assessment is desk research from Chainflip's documentation, blog and code repository, plus the Trail of Bits audit library, rechecked on 6 November 2026. We did not swap funds through Chainflip.

How Chainflip scores in bridges

The bridges category uses five criteria, each worth 20%. All five marks moved at this check.

Arithmetic: (9 + 10 + 10 + 5 + 4) / 5 = 38 / 5 = 7.6.

What changed: Trust model disclosure rose from 2 to 10 once the governance and security documentation, which returned 404 in July, could be read. Fee transparency rose from 7 to 9 because the "how swapping works" page now itemizes every fee rather than the single burn figure the July review relied on. Chain coverage rose from 3 to 5 after the supported chains page enumerated eight mainnet chains. Audit disclosure rose from 2 to 4 on the strength of a dated Trail of Bits review and a Chainflip post naming Zellic, though Chainflip itself still links no reports. Licence & code openness rose from 9 to 10 under the single licence scale the category now applies: an Apache 2.0 licence in the repository file scores 10, as it does for Axelar.

Strongest criteria: trust model, fees and licence

Trust model disclosure (10)

Chainflip holds native assets in vaults on each chain rather than minting wrapped tokens. The documentation says exactly who controls them. Up to 150 validators, chosen in an auction every three-day epoch, form the Authority Set. A vault signature needs a two-thirds majority, which the docs illustrate as 100 of 150, using FROST threshold signatures. Validators need at least 20,000 FLIP to qualify and a bid of at least 50,000 FLIP to be selected.

The governance page also states what can override that set. A 3-of-6 Governance Key, held by members of the Chainflip Labs Security Council, handles upgrades and can trigger Safe Mode, pausing core functions. Withdrawing funds from a frozen vault also needs a 5-of-9 Community Key held by people outside Labs. A reader can see both failure conditions: 100 colluding validators, or the governance keys acting together. That is the full standard for this criterion. It also means funds are held by the validator set while a swap is in flight, which the score records as disclosed rather than penalizes.

Fee transparency (9)

The fee page gives figures for almost every component. The network fee is 0.10%, or 0.01% for stablecoin-to-stablecoin swaps, with a $0.50 minimum, and it is used to buy and burn FLIP. Each pool charges a fixed 0.10% to 0.15%, applied on each leg, and most swaps run as two legs through USDC. Optional Boost for Bitcoin deposits costs 0.05% to 0.3%. A refunded swap pays the $0.50 minimum. The mark stops at 9 because deposit gas and the destination broadcast fee vary by chain without a published table, and broker fees are set by whichever app you use.

Licence & code openness (10)

The chainflip-backend repository carries the Apache License 2.0, a recognized open-source licence with no change date or use restriction. The licence itself has not changed since July; the mark moved from 9 to 10 so that the same licence file earns the same mark across the category.

Weakest criteria: coverage and audits

Chain coverage (5)

The supported chains page lists eight mainnet chains: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Solana, Polkadot, Polkadot Asset Hub, Tron and BNB Smart Chain, with 21 assets between them. That is a measured result, not missing data. It is narrower than the 26 or more chains Across claims or the 40-plus Celer cBridge states. Native Bitcoin support is a design feature that this count-based criterion does not reward separately.

Audit disclosure (4)

Chainflip's governance page refers to "comprehensive internal and external audits" without naming a firm or linking a report, and the docs have no audit index. Two primary records exist elsewhere. Trail of Bits' own library lists a 12-week Chainflip security review from April 2023 with 26 findings, four of them high severity, and links the report. A Chainflip blog post announces an audit by Zellic but links no results. Named firms and one dated public report lift the mark from 2. The absence of an index on Chainflip's side, with dates and links, keeps it well below Celer's 7 and Axelar's 10. An audit reviews code at a point in time and is not a safety guarantee.

What the score does not cover

• Price and slippage. Chainflip's docs warn that users typically see at least 0.25% slippage against the oracle price once fees are included. We did not measure real quotes.
• Operator structure. Development sits with Chainflip Labs GmbH in Berlin and the swap interface with the Crosschain Association; neither is scored.
• Failed-transfer recovery. Some failed outgoing transfers must be resubmitted by hand within one epoch, per the docs. Not scored.
• Incident history. Not scored.

Chainflip vs Across and Celer cBridge

On current category marks, Chainflip is fifth of nine at 7.6, and Across follows in sixth at 7.2. Both take 10 for trust model disclosure. Chainflip is ahead on fees (9 against 5) and licence (10 against 4); Across is ahead on chain coverage (9 against 5) and audits (8 against 4). Celer cBridge, third at 8.4, is level with Chainflip on licence at 10, ahead on coverage and audits, and behind on trust model and fees.

Who it suits

Chainflip's marks favor users who want to swap native assets, including BTC, between a small set of major chains, and who want the custody threshold and the fee table stated in figures before they send. Users who need many chains, or who want an audit index maintained by the protocol itself, will find the gaps here. For the general risks of cross-chain transfers, read how blockchain bridges work and why they are risky, and for the pool mechanics, our explainer on automated market makers. This rating measures disclosure, not safety.