Hello Polkadot fam,
After UXB-3, i’m back with another work for the UX Bounty.
About this project
Many users struggle to find the best bridge for moving assets to and within Polkadot.
This project is divided into two phases:
-
Phase 1: Immediately address the discoverability issue.
-
Phase 2: Propose a broader plan to enhance and expand Polkadot’s bridging experience. This phase will be refined based on research findings and community feedback (from P1), and is provided for informational purposes only.
Problems Overview
-
Search engine results (SERP) are currently dominated by the Polkadot Wiki, where content is highly technical—useful for developers but less helpful for end-users.
-
No official user journeys currently guide users between different bridges (e.g., entering Polkadot via Chainflip, then moving assets to Hydration). Phase 2.
-
Polkadot is also not integrated with popular third-party bridges. Phase 2.
Objectives
-
Immediately address the lack of a user-friendly page in search results and redirect SEO juice.
-
Lay the groundwork (research, discovery, and strategy) to propose an ecosystem-wide plan for improving and expanding the bridging experience. Phase 2.
Here is a brief summary of the research doc to go straight to the point.
Key Insights
1. Bridge Types & Tradeoffs
A. Non-custodial & decentralized (Trustless)
Snowbridge, Turtle, Hyperbridge
- Pros: Trustless, high security
- Cons: Limited integrations, low user awareness
B. Non-custodial with liquidity pools
ChainFlip, SquidRouter, Axelar, Stargate, Wormhole, Symbiosis, DeBridge, etc.
- Pros: Widely integrated in dapps, strong user recognition
- Cons: Security risks, slippage, LP dependency
C. Non-custodial & centralized
CCTP, USDT0, SimpleSwap, StealthEx
- Pros: Native stablecoins, wallet integrations
- Cons: Centralized
D. Custodial bridges (CEXs)
Binance, Coinbase, OKX
- Pros: High adoption, UX familiarity
- Cons: Anti-Web3 model
2. Ecosystem Benchmarking
- Internal bridging (XCM/HRMP): Secure and native to Polkadot.
- External bridges: Trustless, but under-integrated and less visible.
- Compared to Cosmos (IBC) and others, Polkadot lacks external liquidity and integrations.
3. Gaps & UX Pain Points
- Lack of stablecoin routing/liquidity outside of CEXs.
- Weak presence on bridge aggregators (e.g., DeFiLlama).
- Insufficient comms and education for users on available routes and tools.
- Risk of broken flows due to inconsistent tooling (e.g., Turtle UI lagging Snowbridge devs).
- Critical reliance on off-chain bridges that may discontinue (e.g., Wormhole & Acala).
- Lack of Polkadot “official bridge” branding.
4. User Journey Snapshots
- Case 0: CEX → Parachain → Known path, but DOT/KSM UX traps persist.
- Case 1: L2s → Parachains via EVM bridges (Squid, Stargate)
- Case 2: L2s → HUB → Parachain, is ideal but underutilized
- Case 3 (Future Vision): CEX/L2s → HUB → Rollups — Remove Case 0 & Case 1, simplifies integrations & flows
5. Strategic Opportunities
- Push HUB as entry point to reduce integration friction for CEXs and bridge providers.
- Establish strong liquidity pools on AH for stablecoins (USDC/USDT).
- Improve Polkadot’s visibility across bridging dashboards and explorers.
- Consolidate bridge UX with widgets on HUB dapps (e.g., Squid into Stellaswap or Turtle in the future)
- Consider rebranding Snowbridge/Turtle into “Polkadot bridge”
