Stargate / LayerZero Review

How Stargate scores in bridges

This entry rates Stargate, the native-asset liquidity bridge built on LayerZero messaging, in our bridge ranking. Since an August 2025 Stargate DAO vote, the LayerZero side runs Stargate. That matters here only because some fee and token documentation still describes the old DAO structure. The basis is desk research of Stargate's V2 documentation, LayerZero's documentation and the GitHub repositories of both, checked on November 6, 2026. No transfer was made. The category uses five criteria, each marked 0 to 10 and weighted equally, as set out in our ratings methodology.

The overall score is the plain average: (5 + 8 + 2 + 9 + 9) / 5 = 33 / 5 = 6.6.

Two marks changed at this check, and the overall rose from 6.0 to 6.6. Chain coverage rose from 2 to 9: the earlier review found a supported-networks counter reading zero, while the V2 technical reference enumerates 46 networks. Fee transparency fell from 9 to 5. The 6 bps split the previous review credited is, on Stargate's own V2 fees page, a V1 fee. V2 publishes no rate.

Strongest criteria: chains, audits and the trust model

Chain coverage scores 9. The V2 supported-networks page lists every pool chain, from Ethereum, BNB Chain and Arbitrum to newer networks such as Sonic and Unichain, with token addresses. It then lists the Hydra chains, where Stargate issues an OFT (Omnichain Fungible Token) backed by pool liquidity elsewhere. That is a checkable list, not a counter. The page is undated and sits on the older GitBook site, so the mark rests on that page's content as read at this check.

Audit disclosure scores 9. Stargate's audits page links three V1 reports by Zellic, Quantstamp and Zokyo from March 2022. The stargate-v2 repository holds final reports by Zellic and OtterSec, and LayerZero's audit archive has a Stargate credit-messaging module folder. Every firm is named and every report can be opened. Audits are point-in-time reviews, not insurance.

Trust model disclosure scores 8. LayerZero explains that each DVN checks a message's payload hash and that a message counts as verified once the configured threshold is met. Its security-stack page also says plainly where the model is weakest. Default configurations make LayerZero Labs both a required DVN and the executor, production apps are told to require at least one DVN not run by LayerZero Labs, and some chains have only one DVN provider. Stargate's own page names its DVN and Nethermind's. It does not state the threshold or the required set per route, which keeps the mark below the top.

Weakest criteria: licence and fees

Licence & code openness at 2 is a deficiency. The Stargate V2 licence is BUSL-1.1 with a change date of February 1, 2027, but its parameters name no Change License. The file therefore never says what the code becomes, and the rubric cannot treat it as a delayed-open licence. The LayerZero V2 code underneath is under LZBL-1.2, which opens by stating it is not an open-source licence.

Fee transparency at 5 reflects a mechanism that is explained but not priced. Stargate says the V2 fee is the difference between what the user puts in and what arrives, set dynamically per pathway, with rebates on routes whose pools need rebalancing. On top of that, the user pays a LayerZero execution fee and a DVN verification fee in gas. None of this is published as a rate, and the developer docs point integrators to on-chain quote functions instead. The allocation line (5/6 to the treasury, 1/6 to veSTG holders) reads as out of date after the DAO's dissolution.

What the score does not cover

• Which DVNs and threshold a specific Stargate route requires on a given day.
• Pool depth or credit limits on a route. A large transfer can be capped by the credits on its path.
• Past incidents, which the category does not score unless the protocol documents them itself.
• The STG-to-ZRO conversion, which the conversion page says ends on December 15, 2026. It is a token matter, not a bridge criterion.

Our guide to how bridges work and why they are risky explains the pool and messaging risks in general terms.

Stargate vs Celer cBridge and Synapse

On current category marks, Celer cBridge is third of nine at 8.4, Stargate seventh at 6.6 and Synapse ninth at 5.8. All three run liquidity-pool bridge routes. Stargate leads both on audits (9 against 7 and 5) and matches Celer on chain coverage at 9, ahead of Synapse's 7. Both peers carry recognised open-source licences that Stargate lacks (10 and 9 against 2). Celer's published fee range scores 7 against Stargate's 5, while Synapse, which publishes no fee figures or components, scores 2.

Who this rating suits

The score is useful to anyone moving native USDC, USDT or ETH across many EVM chains who wants a bridge with a long, named audit record and a documented verifier model. It is less useful to a reader who needs a fee they can look up before quoting, or code they can reuse under an open licence. The rating is not a recommendation. Before a large transfer, check the quoted amount received and the route's credit limit.