# Proposal: Adding Flexibility to Bridge Implementations

**URL:** <https://gov.bancor.network/t/proposal-adding-flexibility-to-bridge-implementations/4922>\
**Category:** DAO Archive (SUBMITTED)\
**Created:** [June 17, 2025, 9:15am UTC](https://gov.bancor.network/t/proposal-adding-flexibility-to-bridge-implementations/4922 "2025-06-17T09:15:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![foxsteven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/838e76/32.png) [@foxsteven](https://gov.bancor.network/u/foxsteven)\
**Post date:** [June 17, 2025, 9:15am UTC](https://gov.bancor.network/t/proposal-adding-flexibility-to-bridge-implementations/4922/1 "2025-06-17T09:15:37Z")

</div>

To be posted to Snapshot on Jun 22, 2025

# TL;DR

- The proposal follows the previously passed: [Proposal: Bridge Back to the CarbonDeFi](https://vote.bancor.network/#/proposal/0x07f6e49549caa27f4bbc25821d97450bc603c19e896a950cbb753c10731c4c3e)
- The purpose of this proposal is to add flexibility to the bridge used.
- This is a result of various bridges with their own nuances which make using a public function complicated and in some cases risky.
- The specific reason I am writing this now, is that there is 22.5 WETH on CELO where the easiest way to bring it back to mainnet is not via their native bridge.
- CELO vault: [Address: 0xa15E3295...6Cd01E562 | CeloScan](https://celoscan.io/address/0xa15E3295465439A361dBcac79C1DBCE6Cd01E562#tokentxns)

# New Bridge Function: Copied From the Previous Proposal:

- A new contract associated to each Carbon Vortex will have a new public function called “bridge()”
  - This does not include Ethereum

- The details of this function on each chain will be different to fit the relevant bridge available for this chain
- On execution:
  - Indicate amount or send the full currently available budget of the token
  - Submit a transaction to the bridge
  - Destination on Ethereum will always be the carbonVault address

Note 1: This proposal suggests no caller incentive for this Function as it is likely to be triggered by someone in the community who does not require a financial incentive - this also simplifies the contract.

Note 2: For safety, we should enforce minReturn to prevent bridge actions that “leak” funds in the process as a result of low bridge liquidity.

# Update

- This proposal provides additional flexibility beyond what was covered here: [Proposal: Bridge Back to the CarbonDeFi](https://vote.bancor.network/#/proposal/0x07f6e49549caa27f4bbc25821d97450bc603c19e896a950cbb753c10731c4c3e)
- This proposal, rather than selecting a specific bridge, gives the right to use any of the following bridges on any chain where the protocol has value to be brought back to mainnet:
  - Native bridge
  - Stargate V1/V2
  - Across
  - Wormhole
  - Layer Zero
  - Axelar
  - Hyperlane
  - Chainlink CCIP

# FOR

- Allow increased flexibility as detailed above

# Against

- Make no changes

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sneezejeeze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5f8ce5/32.png) [@sneezejeeze](https://gov.bancor.network/u/sneezejeeze)\
**Post date:** [June 18, 2025, 4:44am UTC](https://gov.bancor.network/t/proposal-adding-flexibility-to-bridge-implementations/4922/2 "2025-06-18T04:44:57Z")

</div>

I’m ignorant on a lot of the technical side but why isn’t using Chainlink CCIP an option?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![foxsteven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/838e76/32.png) [@foxsteven](https://gov.bancor.network/u/foxsteven)\
**Post date:** [June 18, 2025, 6:45am UTC](https://gov.bancor.network/t/proposal-adding-flexibility-to-bridge-implementations/4922/3 "2025-06-18T06:45:03Z")

</div>

I added it. Good catch Sneeze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![glenn](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/gov.bancor.network/glenn/32/1720_2.png) [@glenn](https://gov.bancor.network/u/glenn)\
**Post date:** [June 18, 2025, 4:20pm UTC](https://gov.bancor.network/t/proposal-adding-flexibility-to-bridge-implementations/4922/4 "2025-06-18T16:20:59Z")

</div>

I support this proposal and having multiple options means that we can always have a fallback.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PaperStreetCapital](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/gov.bancor.network/paperstreetcapital/32/2551_2.png) [@PaperStreetCapital](https://gov.bancor.network/u/PaperStreetCapital)\
**Post date:** [June 18, 2025, 5:00pm UTC](https://gov.bancor.network/t/proposal-adding-flexibility-to-bridge-implementations/4922/5 "2025-06-18T17:00:23Z")

</div>

Also I like simplifying the contract by removing the financial incentives; I think you’re totally correct to think a community member will keep an eye on it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![foxsteven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/838e76/32.png) [@foxsteven](https://gov.bancor.network/u/foxsteven)\
**Post date:** [June 30, 2025, 9:06am UTC](https://gov.bancor.network/t/proposal-adding-flexibility-to-bridge-implementations/4922/6 "2025-06-30T09:06:29Z")

</div>

This how now been implemented