Bridging assets to or from Sui carries the same main risks as other chains: smart contract bugs that can be exploited, validator or relayer collusion that could fake transactions, and liquidity issues where wrapped assets lose backing. On top of that, downtime or poor UX can temporarily trap funds.

Sui helps reduce some of these risks with its Move language (which enforces strict ownership rules and reduces common coding bugs) and its object-based model (harder to duplicate or “infinite mint” assets). The ecosystem is also pushing for trust-minimized bridges, where chains verify each other directly instead of relying only on multisigs.

In short, bridging to Sui is safer by design than some older chains, but the same rule applies everywhere: only bridge what you’re willing to risk, and stick to audited, liquid bridges.

Native capabilities for secure asset wrapping and verification.

• Validator-based consensus and stake slashing to reduce collusion risks.

• Multi-sig or ZK-based verification for trust-minimized in

Audited bridge protocols (e.g., Wormhole, Axelar) with proven security models.

• Native capabilities for secure asset wrapping and verification.

• Validator-based consensus and stake slashing to reduce collusion risks.

• Multi-sig or ZK-based verification for trust-minimized interoperability.

Still, users should favor well-established,

What can go wrong

If you move tokens or NFTs across chains (using a bridge), you could run into: • Smart contract bugs or vulnerabilities — bridges use complex code to lock, mint, burn, or release assets. If there’s a bug, hackers might exploit it to steal funds.
• Trusted/custodial risk — some bridges depend on a set of validators, or a central party. If they are compromised, collude, or act maliciously, your assets could be lost.
• Wrapped / synthetic asset risk — the version of your asset on the target chain is often “wrapped” or synthetic. If redemption fails, or the backing mechanism has issues, it may lose value or become hard to convert back.
• Liquidity & recognition issues — sometimes after bridging, the asset isn’t recognized or usable in the target ecosystem, because there is low liquidity or missing support. That makes swapping or moving it difficult.
• Hidden fees / high transaction costs & slippage — you pay gas or fees on both sides, and price changes (slippage) can reduce your effective value. Small transfers might suffer disproportionately.
• Delay or “stuck assets” — because bridging involves multiple steps, sometimes things go wrong: tokens may not arrive, or be stuck due to missing routes, confirmation issues, or errors.
• Security incidents in Sui ecosystem or other involved chains — even if the bridge works, vulnerabilities in the destination chain or smart contracts (including DeFi apps you use after bridging) could lead to losses. E.g. Sui’s Cetus AMM was exploited, draining massive value.
• Regulatory / compliance risk — cross-chain transfers may attract regulatory scrutiny depending on jurisdictions; wrapped assets might be treated differently by law.

⸻

What you can do to reduce risk

To protect yourself, you might: • Use well-known, audited bridges. • Move small test amounts first before larger transfers. • Check if the wrapped asset is redeemable back on the original chain. • Look up whether your asset is recognized & usable in the target chain’s apps (wallets, DEXs). • Be aware of fees & wait times, especially during network congestion.